Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
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/2019/4/22/18510828/tesla-elon-musk-autonomy-day-investor-comments-self-driving-cars-predictions
And then making comments such as this;
It’s financially insane to buy anything other than a Tesla.
Or this;
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.
