If you own a Tesla and had issues with it, then I think people would be more receptive to your negative viewpoints. But right now, all I'm seeing is an agenda and a vested interest completely divorced from the product.
The M3 is a well designed BEV with leading technology in numerous areas. I never minimized that aspect. Other than to indicate for
the most part, that Tesla's technology is widely known and available to other OEMs. Personally I find the 40 kWh Leaf more appealing
for my needs, and without the negatives of the M3 I've expressed on MNL.
My key objections are with Tesla's management and marketing of its products. Why the need for the "smoke & mirrors" approach
when presenting and discussing Tesla's near term guidance? Frequent full sales and financial disclosures will most likely result in
less stock volatility in the long run, and less short selling. There's no need for Elon's typical hyperbolic presentations which denote,
as an example, that FSD (full self driving) will be available by late 2020 or sooner;
https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/22/1851 ... redictions
And then making comments such as this;
It’s financially insane to buy anything other than a Tesla.
Tesla unveiled a new microchip that Musk said was being included in every new Tesla produced today.
He called “the best chip in the world… objectively.”
There're more than enough very good word-of-mouth data on Tesla products, without the need for such comments.
The financial data I've used in presenting my perspective on Tesla are publicly available from Tesla's P&L statements. The calculations
used are very simple Accounting 101 theory that most can derive from what has been posted. It's unfortunate that some disapprove
of viewing Tesla's financial and market position analytically. One always has the option to ignore my posts or to refute the
calculations using the same publicly available financial data.
And yet the shorts who relied on that accounting 101 drew conclusions that were complete opposites of q3 and q4. It's one thing to understand the p&l, it's something else to draw the wrong conclusions and then pontificate on those conclusions and not the p&l itself. That's why we'll never agree.
As for Elon musk's hyperbole, that's usually taken out of context. As an engineer, he tries to be precise, but that's almost impossible when he's speculating. People read his answers one way without the context of the question, and attribute conclusions that he didn't intend. At the same time, these are predictions/plans that are forced to go through the ringers of reality. Tesla has demonstrated that they complete their projects, just not on time. As a long, I've long discounted his timeline projections as optimism, but pay very close attention to what tech they've implented and how they do so - gf3, enhanced AP, "feature complete" FSD - these are huge steps ahead of the competition.
"Feature complete" FSD is the perfect example of the misrepresentations that's prevalent about Musk. When he provided his timeline expectation (interview prior to the ark invest one), he had actually also explained what he meant by it, but many of the news outlets cropped it to mean that FSD would be ready by end of year, which is NOT what he meant. But that claim has been circulated too extensively to counter. By the time of the ark invest interview, when he repeated his explanation of "feature complete", everyone claimed that he walked back his projections, when that wasn't true, because of poor writing/editing.
I get that the above makes me sound like an apologist, but I've read through enough BS to not trust mass media, but to try to get source material at all times. I also don't see a bed of roses. As webb14leaf said, Tesla might fail, but not with as much certainty as you've proclaimed.