Amazing random stat - apparently Elon Musk was worth $27bn at the start of 2020, and his net worth was $185bn by the start of 2021 (though it fluctuates a lot month to month). That's downright insane. Even Bezos's wealth didn't rise that steeply in a single year.
Tesla share price went totally bonkers last year, it’s not possibly sustainable now that every other manufacturer is playing the same game.
It’s not really just a car company but even if you assume it was, the valuation today is on the cheap end.
That's simply not true.
Let's make some assumptions shall we.
Let's assume that the car market in 2035 is 95% electric. Fair?
Let's assume that Tesla is 20% of the electric car market in 2035. Which is aggressive. But not ridiculous.
Let's also assume that Tesla's average sale price in 2035 is $60,000. Which is also aggressive, but not ridiculous.
Now for the big difficult question: what's Tesla's net (after tax) profit margin?
I'm going to go with 9%. Which is not as high as Porsche today (9.8%), but is substantially higher than any other auto maker. (Bear in mind also that because Tesla is vertically integrated, it contains more low margin elements than a traditional auto maker.)
We then need to discount back to get the right share price today. And I'm going to use 9% for my discount rate.
That gets you - once you remember to use the proper number of shares in issue - to a price of $680 today.
Now, you can argue that one or more of my assumptions it too bullish or bearish. But this is a bet that Tesla is by far the dominant auto maker worldwide in 2035, which a share TWICE what the largest auto maker today has, and with a margin that is normally only achieved by luxury car makers, and with a pretty bullish average sales price.
I personally wouldn't say that's particularly cheap.
Tesla are leading the world in battery development technology which could end up being a key factor for power generation and storage in countries worldwide. Which if that does happen is a very nice secondary business to get value from too.
Tesla are currently packaging up other people's technology, Panasonic's, when it comes to batteries.
We'll see how their branching out into cell creation goes.
There's more to the technology than just the tech in the battery itself, it also has includes their manufacturing processes etc - just like with SpaceX they're set up with the Gigafactories to produce batteries etc in a way nobody else is yet, though others may copy that.
They've certainly got a potential to profit from this is ways other than just cars.
Johnson really is "Britain Trump" isn't he? Right down to poor judgement in employing staff.
Though Trump ran Biden quite close even though the revelations were even more astonishing against him. Johnson will shrug this off, but I think we have had a glimpse of the toxic incompetence at the top of our government. It is hard to see it ending well, but I think the farce has some way to go yet.
I don't think poor judgement in employing staff is a major part of what I think of when I think of Trump. The sheer force of his odious (to opponents) personality kind of overwhelms issues around him being shit at picking team members or anything else.
There aren't no similarities between the two, but Covid in particular has shown how they can also operate quite differently in important ways, and be awful in different ways too. And 'being incompetent' is itself too common a charactertistic to be kept to just Trumps and the Trump like.
I am just thinking that putting such a toxic egotist as his Chief Advisor and allowing him a free hand (remember when he sacked Javids advisor) shows a real lack of interest in good government, much as Trump did with a succession of chancers from Steve Bannon onwards.
I think the significance of today is going to be more about how historians write about the Pandemic, Brexit and the Johnson Premiership than how it will affect polling, or even the next election.
Tories and their voters are so psychologically and emotionally invested in Johnson that they won't admit that the emperor is stark bollock naked for quite some time yet.
In case anyone wants to know whether I'm a fan of Tesla products, I would note that I bought the original Tesla Roadster in 2010* and was one of the first people in the UK to get a Tesla Model S in 2014. And I'm about to install Tesla solar roof and batteries here in LA.
* One of only 31 people to do so.
The roof tiles interest me the most. Were I to replace the roof on my house I'd definitely go for them. I also think products like that should become the baseline for new builds.
Interesting. I had heard there was a long waiting list and no sign of delivery. If they work they do indeed look very promising
Yes, interest is very high as they're a no brainer for people living south of Cambridge. I don't think the product will become readily available here for another 3-5 years realistically. There's potentially a huge gap there for a UK based competitor to steal a march on Tesla, especially with the EU trade deal now sealed with no tariffs and quotas a company that makes it work and is able to scale could quickly become very successful.
Roof tile solar panels were around 10 years ago when we built our house - they were just phenomenally expensive. I'm surprised China isn't knocking them out already at $500 per kW.
In case anyone wants to know whether I'm a fan of Tesla products, I would note that I bought the original Tesla Roadster in 2010* and was one of the first people in the UK to get a Tesla Model S in 2014. And I'm about to install Tesla solar roof and batteries here in LA.
* One of only 31 people to do so.
BiB: This is the point I was making regarding calculations of Tesla stock comparing with traditional car manufacturers.
Tesla are more than just a car manufacturer. How much revenue and potential future revenue growth does this section of the business have in it?
Plus you're also investing in Musk somewhat. Any future spin-off Tesla (but not SpaceX or other businesses) potential like solar roof and batteries will be included in your stock too.
Yes, I agree. I think I'd be happy to say I'll attribute $50bn of value to stuff that Musk hasn't even thought of yet. Likewise $50bn (say) to Tesla's solar efforts.
The problem is that Tesla is already one of the world's largest companies by market capitalisation. It's $600bn market cap puts it ninth in the world.
The question is not do I think Tesla is an amazing company with amazing opportunities. I do think that. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if it were the dominant player in autos and in batteries and in solar in a decade's time.
The problem is that its $600bn valuation already assumes it's going to achieve that.
Oh agreed.
I think the potential future revenue that Musk hasn't even thought of yet, and the batteries etc, justify their Market Cap today. It doesn't mean that they're undervalued and a bargain to buy, the value from that has already been taken.
Amazing random stat - apparently Elon Musk was worth $27bn at the start of 2020, and his net worth was $185bn by the start of 2021 (though it fluctuates a lot month to month). That's downright insane. Even Bezos's wealth didn't rise that steeply in a single year.
Tesla share price went totally bonkers last year, it’s not possibly sustainable now that every other manufacturer is playing the same game.
It’s not really just a car company but even if you assume it was, the valuation today is on the cheap end.
That's simply not true.
Let's make some assumptions shall we.
Let's assume that the car market in 2035 is 95% electric. Fair?
Let's assume that Tesla is 20% of the electric car market in 2035. Which is aggressive. But not ridiculous.
Let's also assume that Tesla's average sale price in 2035 is $60,000. Which is also aggressive, but not ridiculous.
Now for the big difficult question: what's Tesla's net (after tax) profit margin?
I'm going to go with 9%. Which is not as high as Porsche today (9.8%), but is substantially higher than any other auto maker. (Bear in mind also that because Tesla is vertically integrated, it contains more low margin elements than a traditional auto maker.)
We then need to discount back to get the right share price today. And I'm going to use 9% for my discount rate.
That gets you - once you remember to use the proper number of shares in issue - to a price of $680 today.
Now, you can argue that one or more of my assumptions it too bullish or bearish. But this is a bet that Tesla is by far the dominant auto maker worldwide in 2035, which a share TWICE what the largest auto maker today has, and with a margin that is normally only achieved by luxury car makers, and with a pretty bullish average sales price.
I personally wouldn't say that's particularly cheap.
Tesla are leading the world in battery development technology which could end up being a key factor for power generation and storage in countries worldwide. Which if that does happen is a very nice secondary business to get value from too.
Tesla are currently packaging up other people's technology, Panasonic's, when it comes to batteries.
We'll see how their branching out into cell creation goes.
Panasonic have been saved from the same fate as Sharp becuase they're the primary supplier of Tesla's batteries, it's not a high margin business though. Sony and Panasonic used to be valued fairly similarly a decade ago. Sony bet on PlayStation, movies, music, banking and silicon. Panasonic chose batteries, phones and integrated circuits. Sony now has market capitalisation 4x that of Panasonic.
Tesla's multiplier doesn't reflect any potential margins in batteries because they don't really exist.
Amazing random stat - apparently Elon Musk was worth $27bn at the start of 2020, and his net worth was $185bn by the start of 2021 (though it fluctuates a lot month to month). That's downright insane. Even Bezos's wealth didn't rise that steeply in a single year.
Tesla share price went totally bonkers last year, it’s not possibly sustainable now that every other manufacturer is playing the same game.
It’s not really just a car company but even if you assume it was, the valuation today is on the cheap end.
That's simply not true.
Let's make some assumptions shall we.
Let's assume that the car market in 2035 is 95% electric. Fair?
Let's assume that Tesla is 20% of the electric car market in 2035. Which is aggressive. But not ridiculous.
Let's also assume that Tesla's average sale price in 2035 is $60,000. Which is also aggressive, but not ridiculous.
Now for the big difficult question: what's Tesla's net (after tax) profit margin?
I'm going to go with 9%. Which is not as high as Porsche today (9.8%), but is substantially higher than any other auto maker. (Bear in mind also that because Tesla is vertically integrated, it contains more low margin elements than a traditional auto maker.)
We then need to discount back to get the right share price today. And I'm going to use 9% for my discount rate.
That gets you - once you remember to use the proper number of shares in issue - to a price of $680 today.
Now, you can argue that one or more of my assumptions it too bullish or bearish. But this is a bet that Tesla is by far the dominant auto maker worldwide in 2035, which a share TWICE what the largest auto maker today has, and with a margin that is normally only achieved by luxury car makers, and with a pretty bullish average sales price.
I personally wouldn't say that's particularly cheap.
Tesla are leading the world in battery development technology which could end up being a key factor for power generation and storage in countries worldwide. Which if that does happen is a very nice secondary business to get value from too.
Tesla are currently packaging up other people's technology, Panasonic's, when it comes to batteries.
We'll see how their branching out into cell creation goes.
There's more to the technology than just the tech in the battery itself, it also has includes their manufacturing processes etc - just like with SpaceX they're set up with the Gigafactories to produce batteries etc in a way nobody else is yet, though others may copy that.
They've certainly got a potential to profit from this is ways other than just cars.
If I could choose between owning shares in SpaceX (valuation $74bn, utterly dominant in rocket launches, quite possibly the world's largest ISP in five years time) and Tesla (valuation $600bn), I would definitely be choosing SpaceX.
It wouldn't even be close: I think SpaceX's lead in rocket launches and satellite internet is absolutely massive, and I think no-one has properly worked out the impact on the world of reducing the cost of launches by 90%. The price elasticity there is going to be insane.
In case anyone wants to know whether I'm a fan of Tesla products, I would note that I bought the original Tesla Roadster in 2010* and was one of the first people in the UK to get a Tesla Model S in 2014. And I'm about to install Tesla solar roof and batteries here in LA.
In case anyone wants to know whether I'm a fan of Tesla products, I would note that I bought the original Tesla Roadster in 2010* and was one of the first people in the UK to get a Tesla Model S in 2014. And I'm about to install Tesla solar roof and batteries here in LA.
* One of only 31 people to do so.
The roof tiles interest me the most. Were I to replace the roof on my house I'd definitely go for them. I also think products like that should become the baseline for new builds.
Interesting. I had heard there was a long waiting list and no sign of delivery. If they work they do indeed look very promising
Yes, interest is very high as they're a no brainer for people living south of Cambridge. I don't think the product will become readily available here for another 3-5 years realistically. There's potentially a huge gap there for a UK based competitor to steal a march on Tesla, especially with the EU trade deal now sealed with no tariffs and quotas a company that makes it work and is able to scale could quickly become very successful.
Roof tile solar panels were around 10 years ago when we built our house - they were just phenomenally expensive. I'm surprised China isn't knocking them out already at $500 per kW.
We have had solar panels for 4 years and they are a great investment
In case anyone wants to know whether I'm a fan of Tesla products, I would note that I bought the original Tesla Roadster in 2010* and was one of the first people in the UK to get a Tesla Model S in 2014. And I'm about to install Tesla solar roof and batteries here in LA.
* One of only 31 people to do so.
BiB: This is the point I was making regarding calculations of Tesla stock comparing with traditional car manufacturers.
Tesla are more than just a car manufacturer. How much revenue and potential future revenue growth does this section of the business have in it?
Plus you're also investing in Musk somewhat. Any future spin-off Tesla (but not SpaceX or other businesses) potential like solar roof and batteries will be included in your stock too.
Yes, I agree. I think I'd be happy to say I'll attribute $50bn of value to stuff that Musk hasn't even thought of yet. Likewise $50bn (say) to Tesla's solar efforts.
The problem is that Tesla is already one of the world's largest companies by market capitalisation. It's $600bn market cap puts it ninth in the world.
The question is not do I think Tesla is an amazing company with amazing opportunities. I do think that. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if it were the dominant player in autos and in batteries and in solar in a decade's time.
The problem is that its $600bn valuation already assumes it's going to achieve that.
I am all ears if you have better horses to back over the next decade.
In case anyone wants to know whether I'm a fan of Tesla products, I would note that I bought the original Tesla Roadster in 2010* and was one of the first people in the UK to get a Tesla Model S in 2014. And I'm about to install Tesla solar roof and batteries here in LA.
* One of only 31 people to do so.
The roof tiles interest me the most. Were I to replace the roof on my house I'd definitely go for them. I also think products like that should become the baseline for new builds.
Interesting. I had heard there was a long waiting list and no sign of delivery. If they work they do indeed look very promising
Yes, interest is very high as they're a no brainer for people living south of Cambridge. I don't think the product will become readily available here for another 3-5 years realistically. There's potentially a huge gap there for a UK based competitor to steal a march on Tesla, especially with the EU trade deal now sealed with no tariffs and quotas a company that makes it work and is able to scale could quickly become very successful.
Roof tile solar panels were around 10 years ago when we built our house - they were just phenomenally expensive. I'm surprised China isn't knocking them out already at $500 per kW.
Perhaps they haven't found a way to nick the IP yet. Give them time!
But the people shouting "racist" would never have voted for Boris.
I the explanation is simpler: Boris Johnson wants London to be the world capital. He has a pretty Londonocentric view. He wants everyone who's anyone to have a home here, and to want to live here. And - while it sucks for Brits wanting affordable housing in the capital - this strategy has brought in a lot of tax and business into the UK.
But making London the centre of the world meant leaving the borders open. If you couldn't get to and from London, why would you want to live there?
There's no doubt in my mind for all the attempts to stir up the pointless Culture War, the decision not to close the borders was primarily economic.
For all the "good result" NZ has got from Covid in terms of cases and deaths, the economic impact of closing the country to tourism has been disastrous, Put simply, there aren't enough New Zealanders "staycationing" to keep those parts of the economy dependent on tourism going.
The other thought is by the time we closed the borders it was already too late. That's not to say the borders couldn't and shouldn't have been closed later but the truth is not even NZ is closed to Kiwis. As an NZ resident, Mrs Stodge is able to go back any time - as long as she quarantines for 14 days at a cost of £1500. My suspicion is the number of potential UK passport holders was too large to enable a similar quarantine network to be effective and it's not proven effective in NZ either.
Its a somewhat different situation in the UK as we run a huge tourism deficit normally.
I suspect Boris yearns easy popularity and doesn't like saying 'no' to people.
So was (and still is re Portugal) far too relaxed about people taking foreign holidays and then far too slow to bring in restrictions.
Yes indeed. Apparently there are a load of Manchester United fans engaging in "essential travel" to see a football match as we speak. The restrictions on travel have been a joke.
I don't think they enjoyed that first half. A beautifully crafted Villareal goal.
I'm not sure what Dominic gains from this? We thought last year that he was a nasty little b*stard and now he shows that's true. Is he telling the full truth? Two words ... "Barnard Castle."
Mind you, wee Jimmy showed the same thing with poor old Salmond's mangling.
Like watching France versus Wales at rugby. You want them both to lose.
Definite loser today is Sunak.
Tory MPs now think Cummings will be back in Downing Street if Sunak becomes PM.
Rishi is a billionaire ain't he? Have we ever had a billionaire PM before?
He's not a billionaire, his wife is a multi millionaire because her father is a billionaire.
Because of the time value of money we're not likely to have ever had a billionaire as PM.
I'm trying to think, relatively speaking, the richest PM we've ever had.
Thatcher was quite wealthy thanks to her husband's business interests.
Going back further it might be the Earl of Derby who was worth £7 million back in the 19th century, which must be worth £500 million in today's money?
From my little black book:
(Methodology based on % of national net income). Author Philip Beresford
Thomas Beckett - effective PM - £24bn Cardinal Wolsey - £11bn Sir Robert Peel - £5bn Marquess of Rockingham - £4bn Duke of Newcastle - £3.4bn
(My list ends at £2.5bn)
If Measuring Worth is correct, Derby would have been worth £15.3 billion on that basis, so ahead of Newcastle and Rockingham. I’m confident he was richer than Peel. He had massive cotton interests and owned most of Lancashire.
His ancestor is down at £7.3bn
(Looking at Richest of the Rich and the rules they follow is that they only highlight the richest of any given family)
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
The hubris and complacency of this man killed 50,000 people and screwed the economy. That's the narrative Labour need to establish imo.
In case anyone wants to know whether I'm a fan of Tesla products, I would note that I bought the original Tesla Roadster in 2010* and was one of the first people in the UK to get a Tesla Model S in 2014. And I'm about to install Tesla solar roof and batteries here in LA.
* One of only 31 people to do so.
BiB: This is the point I was making regarding calculations of Tesla stock comparing with traditional car manufacturers.
Tesla are more than just a car manufacturer. How much revenue and potential future revenue growth does this section of the business have in it?
Plus you're also investing in Musk somewhat. Any future spin-off Tesla (but not SpaceX or other businesses) potential like solar roof and batteries will be included in your stock too.
Yes, I agree. I think I'd be happy to say I'll attribute $50bn of value to stuff that Musk hasn't even thought of yet. Likewise $50bn (say) to Tesla's solar efforts.
The problem is that Tesla is already one of the world's largest companies by market capitalisation. It's $600bn market cap puts it ninth in the world.
The question is not do I think Tesla is an amazing company with amazing opportunities. I do think that. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if it were the dominant player in autos and in batteries and in solar in a decade's time.
The problem is that its $600bn valuation already assumes it's going to achieve that.
I am all ears if you have better horses to back over the next decade.
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got an email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
In case anyone wants to know whether I'm a fan of Tesla products, I would note that I bought the original Tesla Roadster in 2010* and was one of the first people in the UK to get a Tesla Model S in 2014. And I'm about to install Tesla solar roof and batteries here in LA.
* One of only 31 people to do so.
BiB: This is the point I was making regarding calculations of Tesla stock comparing with traditional car manufacturers.
Tesla are more than just a car manufacturer. How much revenue and potential future revenue growth does this section of the business have in it?
Plus you're also investing in Musk somewhat. Any future spin-off Tesla (but not SpaceX or other businesses) potential like solar roof and batteries will be included in your stock too.
Yes, I agree. I think I'd be happy to say I'll attribute $50bn of value to stuff that Musk hasn't even thought of yet. Likewise $50bn (say) to Tesla's solar efforts.
The problem is that Tesla is already one of the world's largest companies by market capitalisation. It's $600bn market cap puts it ninth in the world.
The question is not do I think Tesla is an amazing company with amazing opportunities. I do think that. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if it were the dominant player in autos and in batteries and in solar in a decade's time.
The problem is that its $600bn valuation already assumes it's going to achieve that.
I am all ears if you have better horses to back over the next decade.
Take a look at The Science Group. (SAG) a very innovative tech start up in Cambridge.
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got and email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
Amazing random stat - apparently Elon Musk was worth $27bn at the start of 2020, and his net worth was $185bn by the start of 2021 (though it fluctuates a lot month to month). That's downright insane. Even Bezos's wealth didn't rise that steeply in a single year.
Tesla share price went totally bonkers last year, it’s not possibly sustainable now that every other manufacturer is playing the same game.
It’s not really just a car company but even if you assume it was, the valuation today is on the cheap end.
That's simply not true.
Let's make some assumptions shall we.
Let's assume that the car market in 2035 is 95% electric. Fair?
Let's assume that Tesla is 20% of the electric car market in 2035. Which is aggressive. But not ridiculous.
Let's also assume that Tesla's average sale price in 2035 is $60,000. Which is also aggressive, but not ridiculous.
Now for the big difficult question: what's Tesla's net (after tax) profit margin?
I'm going to go with 9%. Which is not as high as Porsche today (9.8%), but is substantially higher than any other auto maker. (Bear in mind also that because Tesla is vertically integrated, it contains more low margin elements than a traditional auto maker.)
We then need to discount back to get the right share price today. And I'm going to use 9% for my discount rate.
That gets you - once you remember to use the proper number of shares in issue - to a price of $680 today.
Now, you can argue that one or more of my assumptions it too bullish or bearish. But this is a bet that Tesla is by far the dominant auto maker worldwide in 2035, which a share TWICE what the largest auto maker today has, and with a margin that is normally only achieved by luxury car makers, and with a pretty bullish average sales price.
I personally wouldn't say that's particularly cheap.
Tesla are leading the world in battery development technology which could end up being a key factor for power generation and storage in countries worldwide. Which if that does happen is a very nice secondary business to get value from too.
Tesla are currently packaging up other people's technology, Panasonic's, when it comes to batteries.
We'll see how their branching out into cell creation goes.
There's more to the technology than just the tech in the battery itself, it also has includes their manufacturing processes etc - just like with SpaceX they're set up with the Gigafactories to produce batteries etc in a way nobody else is yet, though others may copy that.
They've certainly got a potential to profit from this is ways other than just cars.
If I could choose between owning shares in SpaceX (valuation $74bn, utterly dominant in rocket launches, quite possibly the world's largest ISP in five years time) and Tesla (valuation $600bn), I would definitely be choosing SpaceX.
It wouldn't even be close: I think SpaceX's lead in rocket launches and satellite internet is absolutely massive, and I think no-one has properly worked out the impact on the world of reducing the cost of launches by 90%. The price elasticity there is going to be insane.
Amazing random stat - apparently Elon Musk was worth $27bn at the start of 2020, and his net worth was $185bn by the start of 2021 (though it fluctuates a lot month to month). That's downright insane. Even Bezos's wealth didn't rise that steeply in a single year.
Tesla share price went totally bonkers last year, it’s not possibly sustainable now that every other manufacturer is playing the same game.
It’s not really just a car company but even if you assume it was, the valuation today is on the cheap end.
That's simply not true.
Let's make some assumptions shall we.
Let's assume that the car market in 2035 is 95% electric. Fair?
Let's assume that Tesla is 20% of the electric car market in 2035. Which is aggressive. But not ridiculous.
Let's also assume that Tesla's average sale price in 2035 is $60,000. Which is also aggressive, but not ridiculous.
Now for the big difficult question: what's Tesla's net (after tax) profit margin?
I'm going to go with 9%. Which is not as high as Porsche today (9.8%), but is substantially higher than any other auto maker. (Bear in mind also that because Tesla is vertically integrated, it contains more low margin elements than a traditional auto maker.)
We then need to discount back to get the right share price today. And I'm going to use 9% for my discount rate.
That gets you - once you remember to use the proper number of shares in issue - to a price of $680 today.
Now, you can argue that one or more of my assumptions it too bullish or bearish. But this is a bet that Tesla is by far the dominant auto maker worldwide in 2035, which a share TWICE what the largest auto maker today has, and with a margin that is normally only achieved by luxury car makers, and with a pretty bullish average sales price.
I personally wouldn't say that's particularly cheap.
Tesla are leading the world in battery development technology which could end up being a key factor for power generation and storage in countries worldwide. Which if that does happen is a very nice secondary business to get value from too.
Tesla are currently packaging up other people's technology, Panasonic's, when it comes to batteries.
We'll see how their branching out into cell creation goes.
There's more to the technology than just the tech in the battery itself, it also has includes their manufacturing processes etc - just like with SpaceX they're set up with the Gigafactories to produce batteries etc in a way nobody else is yet, though others may copy that.
They've certainly got a potential to profit from this is ways other than just cars.
If I could choose between owning shares in SpaceX (valuation $74bn, utterly dominant in rocket launches, quite possibly the world's largest ISP in five years time) and Tesla (valuation $600bn), I would definitely be choosing SpaceX.
It wouldn't even be close: I think SpaceX's lead in rocket launches and satellite internet is absolutely massive, and I think no-one has properly worked out the impact on the world of reducing the cost of launches by 90%. The price elasticity there is going to be insane.
Agreed. You can probably buy in from the states with big $ actually if you ask about.
In case anyone wants to know whether I'm a fan of Tesla products, I would note that I bought the original Tesla Roadster in 2010* and was one of the first people in the UK to get a Tesla Model S in 2014. And I'm about to install Tesla solar roof and batteries here in LA.
* One of only 31 people to do so.
The roof tiles interest me the most. Were I to replace the roof on my house I'd definitely go for them. I also think products like that should become the baseline for new builds.
Interesting. I had heard there was a long waiting list and no sign of delivery. If they work they do indeed look very promising
Yes, interest is very high as they're a no brainer for people living south of Cambridge. I don't think the product will become readily available here for another 3-5 years realistically. There's potentially a huge gap there for a UK based competitor to steal a march on Tesla, especially with the EU trade deal now sealed with no tariffs and quotas a company that makes it work and is able to scale could quickly become very successful.
Roof tile solar panels were around 10 years ago when we built our house - they were just phenomenally expensive. I'm surprised China isn't knocking them out already at $500 per kW.
Perhaps they haven't found a way to nick the IP yet. Give them time!
IP? It's a solar panel - stuck to roof tile. Where's the IP in that?
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got and email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
In case anyone wants to know whether I'm a fan of Tesla products, I would note that I bought the original Tesla Roadster in 2010* and was one of the first people in the UK to get a Tesla Model S in 2014. And I'm about to install Tesla solar roof and batteries here in LA.
* One of only 31 people to do so.
BiB: This is the point I was making regarding calculations of Tesla stock comparing with traditional car manufacturers.
Tesla are more than just a car manufacturer. How much revenue and potential future revenue growth does this section of the business have in it?
Plus you're also investing in Musk somewhat. Any future spin-off Tesla (but not SpaceX or other businesses) potential like solar roof and batteries will be included in your stock too.
Yes, I agree. I think I'd be happy to say I'll attribute $50bn of value to stuff that Musk hasn't even thought of yet. Likewise $50bn (say) to Tesla's solar efforts.
The problem is that Tesla is already one of the world's largest companies by market capitalisation. It's $600bn market cap puts it ninth in the world.
The question is not do I think Tesla is an amazing company with amazing opportunities. I do think that. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if it were the dominant player in autos and in batteries and in solar in a decade's time.
The problem is that its $600bn valuation already assumes it's going to achieve that.
I am all ears if you have better horses to back over the next decade.
Take a look at The Science Group. (SAG) a very innovative tech start up in Cambridge.
Amazing random stat - apparently Elon Musk was worth $27bn at the start of 2020, and his net worth was $185bn by the start of 2021 (though it fluctuates a lot month to month). That's downright insane. Even Bezos's wealth didn't rise that steeply in a single year.
Tesla share price went totally bonkers last year, it’s not possibly sustainable now that every other manufacturer is playing the same game.
It’s not really just a car company but even if you assume it was, the valuation today is on the cheap end.
That's simply not true.
Let's make some assumptions shall we.
Let's assume that the car market in 2035 is 95% electric. Fair?
Let's assume that Tesla is 20% of the electric car market in 2035. Which is aggressive. But not ridiculous.
Let's also assume that Tesla's average sale price in 2035 is $60,000. Which is also aggressive, but not ridiculous.
Now for the big difficult question: what's Tesla's net (after tax) profit margin?
I'm going to go with 9%. Which is not as high as Porsche today (9.8%), but is substantially higher than any other auto maker. (Bear in mind also that because Tesla is vertically integrated, it contains more low margin elements than a traditional auto maker.)
We then need to discount back to get the right share price today. And I'm going to use 9% for my discount rate.
That gets you - once you remember to use the proper number of shares in issue - to a price of $680 today.
Now, you can argue that one or more of my assumptions it too bullish or bearish. But this is a bet that Tesla is by far the dominant auto maker worldwide in 2035, which a share TWICE what the largest auto maker today has, and with a margin that is normally only achieved by luxury car makers, and with a pretty bullish average sales price.
I personally wouldn't say that's particularly cheap.
Tesla are leading the world in battery development technology which could end up being a key factor for power generation and storage in countries worldwide. Which if that does happen is a very nice secondary business to get value from too.
Tesla are currently packaging up other people's technology, Panasonic's, when it comes to batteries.
We'll see how their branching out into cell creation goes.
There's more to the technology than just the tech in the battery itself, it also has includes their manufacturing processes etc - just like with SpaceX they're set up with the Gigafactories to produce batteries etc in a way nobody else is yet, though others may copy that.
They've certainly got a potential to profit from this is ways other than just cars.
If I could choose between owning shares in SpaceX (valuation $74bn, utterly dominant in rocket launches, quite possibly the world's largest ISP in five years time) and Tesla (valuation $600bn), I would definitely be choosing SpaceX.
It wouldn't even be close: I think SpaceX's lead in rocket launches and satellite internet is absolutely massive, and I think no-one has properly worked out the impact on the world of reducing the cost of launches by 90%. The price elasticity there is going to be insane.
Agreed. You can probably buy in from the states with big $ actually if you ask about.
There's a reasonably active secondary market in SpaceX shares.
In case anyone wants to know whether I'm a fan of Tesla products, I would note that I bought the original Tesla Roadster in 2010* and was one of the first people in the UK to get a Tesla Model S in 2014. And I'm about to install Tesla solar roof and batteries here in LA.
* One of only 31 people to do so.
The roof tiles interest me the most. Were I to replace the roof on my house I'd definitely go for them. I also think products like that should become the baseline for new builds.
Interesting. I had heard there was a long waiting list and no sign of delivery. If they work they do indeed look very promising
Yes, interest is very high as they're a no brainer for people living south of Cambridge. I don't think the product will become readily available here for another 3-5 years realistically. There's potentially a huge gap there for a UK based competitor to steal a march on Tesla, especially with the EU trade deal now sealed with no tariffs and quotas a company that makes it work and is able to scale could quickly become very successful.
Roof tile solar panels were around 10 years ago when we built our house - they were just phenomenally expensive. I'm surprised China isn't knocking them out already at $500 per kW.
We have had solar panels for 4 years and they are a great investment
So have ours (but only because HMG incentivised them though Feed in Tariffs).
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
The hubris and complacency of this man killed 50,000 people and screwed the economy. That's the narrative Labour need to establish imo.
Now if Starmer had been saying 'close the borders' every PMQ think how much easier that would be.
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got an email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
The hubris and complacency of this man killed 50,000 people and screwed the economy. That's the narrative Labour need to establish imo.
Not sure that sticks as a slogan. It is the result, not the cause. "Unfit for office" could be repeated over and over until it gains traction. Everyone who knows Boris Johnson knows it to be true, even Boris Johnson himself.
In case anyone wants to know whether I'm a fan of Tesla products, I would note that I bought the original Tesla Roadster in 2010* and was one of the first people in the UK to get a Tesla Model S in 2014. And I'm about to install Tesla solar roof and batteries here in LA.
* One of only 31 people to do so.
The roof tiles interest me the most. Were I to replace the roof on my house I'd definitely go for them. I also think products like that should become the baseline for new builds.
Interesting. I had heard there was a long waiting list and no sign of delivery. If they work they do indeed look very promising
Yes, interest is very high as they're a no brainer for people living south of Cambridge. I don't think the product will become readily available here for another 3-5 years realistically. There's potentially a huge gap there for a UK based competitor to steal a march on Tesla, especially with the EU trade deal now sealed with no tariffs and quotas a company that makes it work and is able to scale could quickly become very successful.
Roof tile solar panels were around 10 years ago when we built our house - they were just phenomenally expensive. I'm surprised China isn't knocking them out already at $500 per kW.
Perhaps they haven't found a way to nick the IP yet. Give them time!
IP? It's a solar panel - stuck to roof tile. Where's the IP in that?
There’s plenty of IP in the product if you delve into the detail.
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got an email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
I'm not sure what Dominic gains from this? We thought last year that he was a nasty little b*stard and now he shows that's true. Is he telling the full truth? Two words ... "Barnard Castle."
Mind you, wee Jimmy showed the same thing with poor old Salmond's mangling.
Like watching France versus Wales at rugby. You want them both to lose.
Definite loser today is Sunak.
Tory MPs now think Cummings will be back in Downing Street if Sunak becomes PM.
Rishi is a billionaire ain't he? Have we ever had a billionaire PM before?
He's not a billionaire, his wife is a multi millionaire because her father is a billionaire.
Because of the time value of money we're not likely to have ever had a billionaire as PM.
I'm trying to think, relatively speaking, the richest PM we've ever had.
Thatcher was quite wealthy thanks to her husband's business interests.
Going back further it might be the Earl of Derby who was worth £7 million back in the 19th century, which must be worth £500 million in today's money?
From my little black book:
(Methodology based on % of national net income). Author Philip Beresford
Thomas Beckett - effective PM - £24bn Cardinal Wolsey - £11bn Sir Robert Peel - £5bn Marquess of Rockingham - £4bn Duke of Newcastle - £3.4bn
(My list ends at £2.5bn)
Is that the family algorithm for identifying opportunities?
For the record, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we (https://just.insure) ended up selling to Tesla.
Simply, they're reselling other peoples' insurance, and we could do *amazing* things if we had full access to their sensor data. Even today, though, our telematics model mean we're the most profitable auto insurer (in terms of loss ratio) in the world.
Johnson really is "Britain Trump" isn't he? Right down to poor judgement in employing staff.
Though Trump ran Biden quite close even though the revelations were even more astonishing against him. Johnson will shrug this off, but I think we have had a glimpse of the toxic incompetence at the top of our government. It is hard to see it ending well, but I think the farce has some way to go yet.
I don't think poor judgement in employing staff is a major part of what I think of when I think of Trump. The sheer force of his odious (to opponents) personality kind of overwhelms issues around him being shit at picking team members or anything else.
There aren't no similarities between the two, but Covid in particular has shown how they can also operate quite differently in important ways, and be awful in different ways too. And 'being incompetent' is itself too common a charactertistic to be kept to just Trumps and the Trump like.
I am just thinking that putting such a toxic egotist as his Chief Advisor and allowing him a free hand (remember when he sacked Javids advisor) shows a real lack of interest in good government, much as Trump did with a succession of chancers from Steve Bannon onwards.
I think the significance of today is going to be more about how historians write about the Pandemic, Brexit and the Johnson Premiership than how it will affect polling, or even the next election.
Tories and their voters are so psychologically and emotionally invested in Johnson that they won't admit that the emperor is stark bollock naked for quite some time yet.
Although how much of the Government's polling lead is down to love of it, and how much is down to dislike, and the weaknesses of, the Opposition, is debatable, of course.
The Opposition to the Tories is splintered and the major element of it is at a comparatively low ebb of popularity (and also suffers from a highly inefficient pattern of distribution of the support that it does still enjoy.) So long as this continues there is no particular reason to expect a change of Government.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
Very little interest in this so far from Labour left. Maybe be facing a difficulty about whether to use the evidence of someone they regard as contaminated both by his allegiances and his reliability even though at first glance it is a demolition of all they wish to demolish.
If Labour can't use this opening effectively it could do them some harm, it should be such an open goal; but actually it is quite tricky for them.
In case anyone wants to know whether I'm a fan of Tesla products, I would note that I bought the original Tesla Roadster in 2010* and was one of the first people in the UK to get a Tesla Model S in 2014. And I'm about to install Tesla solar roof and batteries here in LA.
* One of only 31 people to do so.
The roof tiles interest me the most. Were I to replace the roof on my house I'd definitely go for them. I also think products like that should become the baseline for new builds.
Interesting. I had heard there was a long waiting list and no sign of delivery. If they work they do indeed look very promising
Yes, interest is very high as they're a no brainer for people living south of Cambridge. I don't think the product will become readily available here for another 3-5 years realistically. There's potentially a huge gap there for a UK based competitor to steal a march on Tesla, especially with the EU trade deal now sealed with no tariffs and quotas a company that makes it work and is able to scale could quickly become very successful.
Roof tile solar panels were around 10 years ago when we built our house - they were just phenomenally expensive. I'm surprised China isn't knocking them out already at $500 per kW.
Perhaps they haven't found a way to nick the IP yet. Give them time!
IP? It's a solar panel - stuck to roof tile. Where's the IP in that?
Well, I am not a patent attorney, but I would imagine it is significant. The fact that Tesla have promised them for ages and not delivered suggests they are easy to conceptualise, but not to produce. The IP is in the know-how.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
The hubris and complacency of this man killed 50,000 people and screwed the economy. That's the narrative Labour need to establish imo.
Harder than it sounds. People can get careless and their words unintentionally imply all the deaths are his fault (when people quote the total death figure it can seem that way for example), which people obviously reject as unreasonable, so strong attacks that it ended up more deadly than it should have, even allowing for difficulty of the task, can definitely be made but in a careful way.
Strange how a lot of this wizardry of psychological nudging is no more nor less than the ability to convey a message in a simple, polite manner.
It might be true, but such deep analysis of behaviours makes me a little uncomfortable. When they use it in work contexts around personality types and how to adjust for different ones it comes across like integration training for sociopaths.
Be nice and polite and things go easier is perhaps a more human way of summarising the nudging point, though doesn't capture all the elements.
"Integration training for sociopaths". LOL. Well, yes. That's exactly what it is. Most folk aren't sociopaths therefore the insights are banal common sense to the majority. People are different and are not motivated by the same stuff. Therefore you tailor a message to the recipient for example. For sociopaths it is a fascinating, almost magically revelatory way of getting folk to do what you want. They, of course, tend to be over represented in senior positions.
Amazing random stat - apparently Elon Musk was worth $27bn at the start of 2020, and his net worth was $185bn by the start of 2021 (though it fluctuates a lot month to month). That's downright insane. Even Bezos's wealth didn't rise that steeply in a single year.
Tesla share price went totally bonkers last year, it’s not possibly sustainable now that every other manufacturer is playing the same game.
It’s not really just a car company but even if you assume it was, the valuation today is on the cheap end.
That's simply not true.
Let's make some assumptions shall we.
Let's assume that the car market in 2035 is 95% electric. Fair?
Let's assume that Tesla is 20% of the electric car market in 2035. Which is aggressive. But not ridiculous.
Let's also assume that Tesla's average sale price in 2035 is $60,000. Which is also aggressive, but not ridiculous.
Now for the big difficult question: what's Tesla's net (after tax) profit margin?
I'm going to go with 9%. Which is not as high as Porsche today (9.8%), but is substantially higher than any other auto maker. (Bear in mind also that because Tesla is vertically integrated, it contains more low margin elements than a traditional auto maker.)
We then need to discount back to get the right share price today. And I'm going to use 9% for my discount rate.
That gets you - once you remember to use the proper number of shares in issue - to a price of $680 today.
Now, you can argue that one or more of my assumptions it too bullish or bearish. But this is a bet that Tesla is by far the dominant auto maker worldwide in 2035, which a share TWICE what the largest auto maker today has, and with a margin that is normally only achieved by luxury car makers, and with a pretty bullish average sales price.
I personally wouldn't say that's particularly cheap.
Tesla are leading the world in battery development technology which could end up being a key factor for power generation and storage in countries worldwide. Which if that does happen is a very nice secondary business to get value from too.
Tesla are currently packaging up other people's technology, Panasonic's, when it comes to batteries.
We'll see how their branching out into cell creation goes.
There's more to the technology than just the tech in the battery itself, it also has includes their manufacturing processes etc - just like with SpaceX they're set up with the Gigafactories to produce batteries etc in a way nobody else is yet, though others may copy that.
They've certainly got a potential to profit from this is ways other than just cars.
If I could choose between owning shares in SpaceX (valuation $74bn, utterly dominant in rocket launches, quite possibly the world's largest ISP in five years time) and Tesla (valuation $600bn), I would definitely be choosing SpaceX.
It wouldn't even be close: I think SpaceX's lead in rocket launches and satellite internet is absolutely massive, and I think no-one has properly worked out the impact on the world of reducing the cost of launches by 90%. The price elasticity there is going to be insane.
Agreed. You can probably buy in from the states with big $ actually if you ask about.
There's a reasonably active secondary market in SpaceX shares.
Last I checked it wasn’t practical for an overseas resident to get involved. I am also a bit too skint right now to meet the minimum buy in I suspect. If I could I would for sure.
Amazing random stat - apparently Elon Musk was worth $27bn at the start of 2020, and his net worth was $185bn by the start of 2021 (though it fluctuates a lot month to month). That's downright insane. Even Bezos's wealth didn't rise that steeply in a single year.
Tesla share price went totally bonkers last year, it’s not possibly sustainable now that every other manufacturer is playing the same game.
It’s not really just a car company but even if you assume it was, the valuation today is on the cheap end.
That's simply not true.
Let's make some assumptions shall we.
Let's assume that the car market in 2035 is 95% electric. Fair?
Let's assume that Tesla is 20% of the electric car market in 2035. Which is aggressive. But not ridiculous.
Let's also assume that Tesla's average sale price in 2035 is $60,000. Which is also aggressive, but not ridiculous.
Now for the big difficult question: what's Tesla's net (after tax) profit margin?
I'm going to go with 9%. Which is not as high as Porsche today (9.8%), but is substantially higher than any other auto maker. (Bear in mind also that because Tesla is vertically integrated, it contains more low margin elements than a traditional auto maker.)
We then need to discount back to get the right share price today. And I'm going to use 9% for my discount rate.
That gets you - once you remember to use the proper number of shares in issue - to a price of $680 today.
Now, you can argue that one or more of my assumptions it too bullish or bearish. But this is a bet that Tesla is by far the dominant auto maker worldwide in 2035, which a share TWICE what the largest auto maker today has, and with a margin that is normally only achieved by luxury car makers, and with a pretty bullish average sales price.
I personally wouldn't say that's particularly cheap.
Tesla are leading the world in battery development technology which could end up being a key factor for power generation and storage in countries worldwide. Which if that does happen is a very nice secondary business to get value from too.
Tesla are currently packaging up other people's technology, Panasonic's, when it comes to batteries.
We'll see how their branching out into cell creation goes.
There's more to the technology than just the tech in the battery itself, it also has includes their manufacturing processes etc - just like with SpaceX they're set up with the Gigafactories to produce batteries etc in a way nobody else is yet, though others may copy that.
They've certainly got a potential to profit from this is ways other than just cars.
If I could choose between owning shares in SpaceX (valuation $74bn, utterly dominant in rocket launches, quite possibly the world's largest ISP in five years time) and Tesla (valuation $600bn), I would definitely be choosing SpaceX.
It wouldn't even be close: I think SpaceX's lead in rocket launches and satellite internet is absolutely massive, and I think no-one has properly worked out the impact on the world of reducing the cost of launches by 90%. The price elasticity there is going to be insane.
Agreed. You can probably buy in from the states with big $ actually if you ask about.
There's a reasonably active secondary market in SpaceX shares.
Last I checked it wasn’t practical for an overseas resident to get involved. I am also a bit too skint right now to meet the minimum buy in I suspect. If I could I would for sure.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
The hubris and complacency of this man killed 50,000 people and screwed the economy. That's the narrative Labour need to establish imo.
Harder than it sounds. People can get careless and their words unintentionally imply all the deaths are his fault (when people quote the total death figure it can seem that way for example), which people obviously reject as unreasonable, so strong attacks that it ended up more deadly than it should have, even allowing for difficulty of the task, can definitely be made but in a careful way.
exactly, which is why "unfit for office" is more politically potent. It also reminds all of his team what they already know to be true
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got an email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
If you're that rich and intend to support your kid so lavishly just do so without the hassle of giving it to a school - your money will talk for your kid even if they didn't get into Harvard.
Amazing random stat - apparently Elon Musk was worth $27bn at the start of 2020, and his net worth was $185bn by the start of 2021 (though it fluctuates a lot month to month). That's downright insane. Even Bezos's wealth didn't rise that steeply in a single year.
Tesla share price went totally bonkers last year, it’s not possibly sustainable now that every other manufacturer is playing the same game.
It’s not really just a car company but even if you assume it was, the valuation today is on the cheap end.
That's simply not true.
Let's make some assumptions shall we.
Let's assume that the car market in 2035 is 95% electric. Fair?
Let's assume that Tesla is 20% of the electric car market in 2035. Which is aggressive. But not ridiculous.
Let's also assume that Tesla's average sale price in 2035 is $60,000. Which is also aggressive, but not ridiculous.
Now for the big difficult question: what's Tesla's net (after tax) profit margin?
I'm going to go with 9%. Which is not as high as Porsche today (9.8%), but is substantially higher than any other auto maker. (Bear in mind also that because Tesla is vertically integrated, it contains more low margin elements than a traditional auto maker.)
We then need to discount back to get the right share price today. And I'm going to use 9% for my discount rate.
That gets you - once you remember to use the proper number of shares in issue - to a price of $680 today.
Now, you can argue that one or more of my assumptions it too bullish or bearish. But this is a bet that Tesla is by far the dominant auto maker worldwide in 2035, which a share TWICE what the largest auto maker today has, and with a margin that is normally only achieved by luxury car makers, and with a pretty bullish average sales price.
I personally wouldn't say that's particularly cheap.
Tesla are leading the world in battery development technology which could end up being a key factor for power generation and storage in countries worldwide. Which if that does happen is a very nice secondary business to get value from too.
Tesla are currently packaging up other people's technology, Panasonic's, when it comes to batteries.
We'll see how their branching out into cell creation goes.
There's more to the technology than just the tech in the battery itself, it also has includes their manufacturing processes etc - just like with SpaceX they're set up with the Gigafactories to produce batteries etc in a way nobody else is yet, though others may copy that.
They've certainly got a potential to profit from this is ways other than just cars.
If I could choose between owning shares in SpaceX (valuation $74bn, utterly dominant in rocket launches, quite possibly the world's largest ISP in five years time) and Tesla (valuation $600bn), I would definitely be choosing SpaceX.
It wouldn't even be close: I think SpaceX's lead in rocket launches and satellite internet is absolutely massive, and I think no-one has properly worked out the impact on the world of reducing the cost of launches by 90%. The price elasticity there is going to be insane.
Agreed. You can probably buy in from the states with big $ actually if you ask about.
There's a reasonably active secondary market in SpaceX shares.
Last I checked it wasn’t practical for an overseas resident to get involved. I am also a bit too skint right now to meet the minimum buy in I suspect. If I could I would for sure.
You didn't buy bitcoin at $3???
Ha! I thought about some kiss away money at about $500 but didn’t then and I still don’t see the point in it beyond greater fool. The thing with a trade like that is you’d have ended up tapping your profits out long before it became a 100 bagger because there’s not much to hand your hat on with it.
For the record, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we (https://just.insure) ended up selling to Tesla.
Simply, they're reselling other peoples' insurance, and we could do *amazing* things if we had full access to their sensor data. Even today, though, our telematics model mean we're the most profitable auto insurer (in terms of loss ratio) in the world.
You should demand the Head of Insurance role as part of your terms. They are going far too slowly in insurance, most likely due to management being spread too thin.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
Ummmm: I thought Tesla was partnered with LG Chem in batteries, but I could be completely wrong.
They buy from both don't they? Panasonic for US and Europe, LG Chem for China as Panasonic didn't want to transfer their battery IP into a Chinese JV.
I used to spend a lot more time on this stuff that I do now, so your information is going to be more up to date that mine.
Tbf I don't really either these days, my role has almost completely transitioned out of investing now, it's basically all ML models for forecasting as well as building out a robust data warehouse and data lake for real time access to transactions, bringing our infrastructure into the modern era of data.
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got an email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
If you're that rich and intend to support your kid so lavishly just do so without the hassle of giving it to a school - your money will talk for your kid even if they didn't get into Harvard.
Yes, but the point of rich doners getting their kids into the top universities in America is not to make them rich, but rather to buy them social status. In a meritocratic world, getting access to those credentials matters.
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got an email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
If you're that rich and intend to support your kid so lavishly just do so without the hassle of giving it to a school - your money will talk for your kid even if they didn't get into Harvard.
From firsthand experience I really believe that both MIT and Caltech accept students on the basis of their personal attributes. Both places have a long record of very successful devoted alumni.
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got an email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
If you're that rich and intend to support your kid so lavishly just do so without the hassle of giving it to a school - your money will talk for your kid even if they didn't get into Harvard.
Yes, but the point of rich doners getting their kids into the top universities in America is not to make them rich, but rather to buy them social status. In a meritocratic world, getting access to those credentials matters.
But if people know its bought what social status is gained they don't already get, or can get cheaper, by being a mega wealthy scion?
Jo RichGuy without a harvard degree will surely find doors open others dont.
If your kid can cop it sure, might as well, but an academic dud you might be better served giving them a leg up another way.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
Boris won't go on for ever but I suspect he will try hard to go in his time not someone else's.
As for 'unfit for office', that's actually a matter for the voters. If true, then in 2019 the voters had to choose between two people 'unfit for office'. But on the polling at the moment given a perfectly decent if dull Labour leader he is out of sight behind.
Maybe the question is: Is Labour relevant and fit for office? They don't address majorities in middling Britain among the middling sort. Tories and Boris do. Perhaps the Tories are the only party fit for office in a Brexit world, and Labour look like yesterday's party, with yesterday's candidates talking a leftish politics that is strangely old fashioned.
I still suggest today's events are not very significant. The most interesting feature of it is the silence of the Labour left.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
Which won't happen: that he turns the UK into a dystopian nightmare State or that people realise?
In case anyone wants to know whether I'm a fan of Tesla products, I would note that I bought the original Tesla Roadster in 2010* and was one of the first people in the UK to get a Tesla Model S in 2014. And I'm about to install Tesla solar roof and batteries here in LA.
* One of only 31 people to do so.
The roof tiles interest me the most. Were I to replace the roof on my house I'd definitely go for them. I also think products like that should become the baseline for new builds.
Interesting. I had heard there was a long waiting list and no sign of delivery. If they work they do indeed look very promising
Yes, interest is very high as they're a no brainer for people living south of Cambridge. I don't think the product will become readily available here for another 3-5 years realistically. There's potentially a huge gap there for a UK based competitor to steal a march on Tesla, especially with the EU trade deal now sealed with no tariffs and quotas a company that makes it work and is able to scale could quickly become very successful.
Roof tile solar panels were around 10 years ago when we built our house - they were just phenomenally expensive. I'm surprised China isn't knocking them out already at $500 per kW.
We have had solar panels for 4 years and they are a great investment
So have ours (but only because HMG incentivised them though Feed in Tariffs).
A solar panel installer told me their customers' motivation was increasingly changing from wanting to save money, to wanting to save the planet.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
Which won't happen: that he turns the UK into a dystopian nightmare State or that people realise?
Dont some now argue the public reaction to Covid suggests it might be a dystopian dream for the majority?
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got an email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
If you're that rich and intend to support your kid so lavishly just do so without the hassle of giving it to a school - your money will talk for your kid even if they didn't get into Harvard.
Yes, but the point of rich doners getting their kids into the top universities in America is not to make them rich, but rather to buy them social status. In a meritocratic world, getting access to those credentials matters.
But if people know its bought what social status is gained they don't already get, or can get cheaper, by being a mega wealthy scion?
Jo RichGuy without a harvard degree will surely find doors open others dont.
If your kid can cop it sure, might as well, but an academic dud you might be better served giving them a leg up another way.
Sure, you don't advertise that your child bought their way in, or got in via a dodgy athletic scholarship. You just boast about it, like Trump did over his Son in Law.
In case anyone wants to know whether I'm a fan of Tesla products, I would note that I bought the original Tesla Roadster in 2010* and was one of the first people in the UK to get a Tesla Model S in 2014. And I'm about to install Tesla solar roof and batteries here in LA.
* One of only 31 people to do so.
The roof tiles interest me the most. Were I to replace the roof on my house I'd definitely go for them. I also think products like that should become the baseline for new builds.
Interesting. I had heard there was a long waiting list and no sign of delivery. If they work they do indeed look very promising
Yes, interest is very high as they're a no brainer for people living south of Cambridge. I don't think the product will become readily available here for another 3-5 years realistically. There's potentially a huge gap there for a UK based competitor to steal a march on Tesla, especially with the EU trade deal now sealed with no tariffs and quotas a company that makes it work and is able to scale could quickly become very successful.
Roof tile solar panels were around 10 years ago when we built our house - they were just phenomenally expensive. I'm surprised China isn't knocking them out already at $500 per kW.
We have had solar panels for 4 years and they are a great investment
So have ours (but only because HMG incentivised them though Feed in Tariffs).
A solar panel installer told me their customers' motivation was increasingly changing from wanting to save money, to wanting to save the planet.
Can't put a price on saving the planet, sir, can we? So no discounts.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
Boris won't go on for ever but I suspect he will try hard to go in his time not someone else's.
As for 'unfit for office', that's actually a matter for the voters. If true, then in 2019 the voters had to choose between two people 'unfit for office'. But on the polling at the moment given a perfectly decent if dull Labour leader he is out of sight behind.
Maybe the question is: Is Labour relevant and fit for office? They don't address majorities in middling Britain among the middling sort. Tories and Boris do. Perhaps the Tories are the only party fit for office in a Brexit world, and Labour look like yesterday's party, with yesterday's candidates talking a leftish politics that is strangely old fashioned.
I still suggest today's events are not very significant. The most interesting feature of it is the silence of the Labour left.
Is unfit for office really just a matter for voters? Voters across the world have voted in some far more unsuitable and dangerous leaders than Johnson. It makes little sense to say just because the voters vote someone in they are fit for office.
Of course Corbyn is also unfit for PM, and would have remained so even if he had somehow won an election.
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got an email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
That will be Caltech?
It’s a bit like describing the Huntington as a small garden in a desert
I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.
They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.
Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.
Still patiently waiting for a date for jab 1. Sigh.
If you are young, fine. If you are of an age when you might expect to have been called, try the NHS booking site in case you have fallen off the system like I had.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
I think you are misrepresenting his critics on here. Most critics on here believe he is a good campaigner and awful at governing. That we repeatedly lament his governments performance, does not imply we are expecting a sudden change in the polls. Many like myself have backed the Tories for the next election, opposed not just Starmer as PM but also Sunak as next PM as it could be a long time before "Boris" leaves.
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got an email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
Can we just stick it at the pitch of thinking him a lying arsehole that most of ‘the public’ in my country wouldn’t want as PM in a million years? I’m quite happy(sic) with that rather than all the devil incarnate crap.
Dominic Cummings’s evidence was every bit as explosive as the billing. But the main thrust of it was extraordinary. It was that Britain should have closed its borders and locked everyone down back in January 2020 at a stage when the first reports were just coming out of Wuhan and very little was known about the virus.
Act first, think later, has never been carried further than that. No responsible government could have contemplated a lockdown before March, when the health implications became apparent.
I'm not sure what Dominic gains from this? We thought last year that he was a nasty little b*stard and now he shows that's true. Is he telling the full truth? Two words ... "Barnard Castle."
Mind you, wee Jimmy showed the same thing with poor old Salmond's mangling.
Like watching France versus Wales at rugby. You want them both to lose.
Definite loser today is Sunak.
Tory MPs now think Cummings will be back in Downing Street if Sunak becomes PM.
Rishi is a billionaire ain't he? Have we ever had a billionaire PM before?
He's not a billionaire, his wife is a multi millionaire because her father is a billionaire.
Because of the time value of money we're not likely to have ever had a billionaire as PM.
I'm trying to think, relatively speaking, the richest PM we've ever had.
Thatcher was quite wealthy thanks to her husband's business interests.
Going back further it might be the Earl of Derby who was worth £7 million back in the 19th century, which must be worth £500 million in today's money?
From my little black book:
(Methodology based on % of national net income). Author Philip Beresford
Thomas Beckett - effective PM - £24bn Cardinal Wolsey - £11bn Sir Robert Peel - £5bn Marquess of Rockingham - £4bn Duke of Newcastle - £3.4bn
(My list ends at £2.5bn)
Is that the family algorithm for identifying opportunities?
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got an email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
That will be Caltech?
It’s a bit like describing the Huntington as a small garden in a desert
Or describing Cambridge (UK) as a working class town. Huntingdon is very nice. Who needs Getty?.
For the record, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we (https://just.insure) ended up selling to Tesla.
Simply, they're reselling other peoples' insurance, and we could do *amazing* things if we had full access to their sensor data. Even today, though, our telematics model mean we're the most profitable auto insurer (in terms of loss ratio) in the world.
Dominic Cummings’s evidence was every bit as explosive as the billing. But the main thrust of it was extraordinary. It was that Britain should have closed its borders and locked everyone down back in January 2020 at a stage when the first reports were just coming out of Wuhan and very little was known about the virus.
Act first, think later, has never been carried further than that. No responsible government could have contemplated a lockdown before March, when the health implications became apparent.
The real criticism in terms of lockdown was the UK government were always about 1-2 weeks too slow... especially the stupid procedure of announcing it to come into force 4-5 days later.
Dominic Cummings’s evidence was every bit as explosive as the billing. But the main thrust of it was extraordinary. It was that Britain should have closed its borders and locked everyone down back in January 2020 at a stage when the first reports were just coming out of Wuhan and very little was known about the virus.
Act first, think later, has never been carried further than that. No responsible government could have contemplated a lockdown before March, when the health implications became apparent.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
I think you are misrepresenting his critics on here. Most critics on here believe he is a good campaigner and awful at governing. That we repeatedly lament his governments performance, does not imply we are expecting a sudden change in the polls. Many like myself have backed the Tories for the next election, opposed not just Starmer as PM but also Sunak as next PM as it could be a long time before "Boris" leaves.
Indeed. A master tactician with no strategy for the country. He's not the Devil because he has no strategy, neither a benevolent nor malevolent one, beyond what is good for him electorally. He's by some way the least objectionable of the last three Conservative PM'S.
Ummmm: I thought Tesla was partnered with LG Chem in batteries, but I could be completely wrong.
They buy from both don't they? Panasonic for US and Europe, LG Chem for China as Panasonic didn't want to transfer their battery IP into a Chinese JV.
I used to spend a lot more time on this stuff that I do now, so your information is going to be more up to date that mine.
Tbf I don't really either these days, my role has almost completely transitioned out of investing now, it's basically all ML models for forecasting as well as building out a robust data warehouse and data lake for real time access to transactions, bringing our infrastructure into the modern era of data.
I don't have a clue what that means, but it sounds important, keep at it!
I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.
They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.
Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.
Crap investment.
The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)
Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
Seriously?
Of course there will be those who will forever claim he was the greatest Prime Minister since the Blessed Margaret and those who will miss his wit, wisdom and optimism but, as sure as night follows day, he will become yesterday's man to a greater number. The drip drip of stories, crises and the sense of promises not delivered and commitments not fulfilled will combine to weaken him.
Ambitious younger politicians will see him as an obstacle and want him removed so they can have their time at the top table outside the shadow of the "Great Man".
This is why all political careers end in failure and Johnson's will be no exception. He will either be thrown out of office by the electorate, forced from office by his Party or, if he is able to leave on his own terms, he will live to see his reputation trashed and his achievements belittled by either ungrateful successors or the public.
Dominic Cummings’s evidence was every bit as explosive as the billing. But the main thrust of it was extraordinary. It was that Britain should have closed its borders and locked everyone down back in January 2020 at a stage when the first reports were just coming out of Wuhan and very little was known about the virus.
Act first, think later, has never been carried further than that. No responsible government could have contemplated a lockdown before March, when the health implications became apparent.
The fricking health implications were obvious to anyone with a brain, by February
Why were the Chinese welding people into their bloody homes? Why were they punching people not wearing masks?
It was clear it was a highly infectious respiratory disease, and it was clear it was headed our way
I remember a bloke on here banging on about it, no idea what happened to him.
It did get my attention though and I got my parents locked down at the end of Feb, as they are in thr bracket who are extremely high risk from serious consequences.
Dominic Cummings’s evidence was every bit as explosive as the billing. But the main thrust of it was extraordinary. It was that Britain should have closed its borders and locked everyone down back in January 2020 at a stage when the first reports were just coming out of Wuhan and very little was known about the virus.
Act first, think later, has never been carried further than that. No responsible government could have contemplated a lockdown before March, when the health implications became apparent.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
Seriously?
Of course there will be those who will forever claim he was the greatest Prime Minister since the Blessed Margaret and those who will miss his wit, wisdom and optimism but, as sure as night follows day, he will become yesterday's man to a greater number. The drip drip of stories, crises and the sense of promises not delivered and commitments not fulfilled will combine to weaken him.
Ambitious younger politicians will see him as an obstacle and want him removed so they can have their time at the top table outside the shadow of the "Great Man".
This is why all political careers end in failure and Johnson's will be no exception. He will either be thrown out of office by the electorate, forced from office by his Party or, if he is able to leave on his own terms, he will live to see his reputation trashed and his achievements belittled by either ungrateful successors or the public.
That, I suspect, is post of the month. Well done @stodge.
For the record, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we (https://just.insure) ended up selling to Tesla.
Simply, they're reselling other peoples' insurance, and we could do *amazing* things if we had full access to their sensor data. Even today, though, our telematics model mean we're the most profitable auto insurer (in terms of loss ratio) in the world.
I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.
They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.
Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.
Crap investment.
The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)
Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.
Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got an email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
That will be Caltech?
It’s a bit like describing the Huntington as a small garden in a desert
Or describing Cambridge (UK) as a working class town. Huntingdon is very nice. Who needs Getty?.
I do have a soft spot for LACMA, but Getty leaves me cold.
Huntingdon & Jacquemart-André are my top museums although Frick is very good as well.
Completely off topic, except that it involves lottsa money, I just got an email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
That will be Caltech?
It’s a bit like describing the Huntington as a small garden in a desert
Or describing Cambridge (UK) as a working class town. Huntingdon is very nice. Who needs Getty?.
I do have a soft spot for LACMA, but Getty leaves me cold.
Huntingdon & Jacquemart-André are my top museums although Frick is very good as well.
I like the Getty, because it's just ten minutes from my house, and has an excellent restaurant.
This is an open goal for Labour. Can they make the "unfit for office" label stick to Johnson.
Anyone who understands anything about leadership can see this to be true as plain as a pikestaff. The problem is that the public in general like having a celebrity for PM and either do not see or choose to overlook his obvious weaknesses. Then there are those that are just plain gullible.
The essential problem is that Cummings is essentially dislikeable. Those that want Johnson gone for the good of the country need to think how the label will stick in the public perception in spite of it coming from Cummings
And that's the problem. It is an open goal, but there's a strong barrier in midfield to get past first.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
I think Blair would have had the Labour front bench mouthing "unfit for office" every time Johnson stood up. It will stick if it is applied effectively. Even if it doesn't immediately stick in the minds of the electorate it will undermine Johnson's authority and every time he messes up it accumulates further and the vultures start to circle.
The thing is that the public don’t see Johnson as the Devil, in the way that so many contributors to this website do.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
Another thing that will save Britain is this: Cummings has plausibly painted Johnson as a uniquely incompetent fool, the mayor from Jaws (who let the shark roam free, chewing up teens, remember).
So that must mean Britain has a uniquely bad record at handling coronavirus? Surely
And yet, not. In the excess death chart, where we once had gold medal status, now we are waaaaay down at about 20th or lower. And yes, economically, we have had a particularly rough time, but similar-sized European countries have done about as bad - or even worse. Spain, Italy. Maybe France. (We still don't know the final scores on the doors)
Meanwhile, we are opening up a little quicker than some European peers, and we are no longer dying, and many others are still dying around the world
Johnson may get away with it. Again. And I am someone who believes Cummings, almost completely in this case (even if he is self-serving)
Dominic Cummings’s evidence was every bit as explosive as the billing. But the main thrust of it was extraordinary. It was that Britain should have closed its borders and locked everyone down back in January 2020 at a stage when the first reports were just coming out of Wuhan and very little was known about the virus.
Act first, think later, has never been carried further than that. No responsible government could have contemplated a lockdown before March, when the health implications became apparent.
Are you sure? Covid was already rampaging through Italy, let alone the Far East. There was talk we could rely on herd immunity (whether or not that was official government policy).
Comments
They've certainly got a potential to profit from this is ways other than just cars.
I think the significance of today is going to be more about how historians write about the Pandemic, Brexit and the Johnson Premiership than how it will affect polling, or even the next election.
Tories and their voters are so psychologically and emotionally invested in Johnson that they won't admit that the emperor is stark bollock naked for quite some time yet.
I think the potential future revenue that Musk hasn't even thought of yet, and the batteries etc, justify their Market Cap today. It doesn't mean that they're undervalued and a bargain to buy, the value from that has already been taken.
Tesla's multiplier doesn't reflect any potential margins in batteries because they don't really exist.
It wouldn't even be close: I think SpaceX's lead in rocket launches and satellite internet is absolutely massive, and I think no-one has properly worked out the impact on the world of reducing the cost of launches by 90%. The price elasticity there is going to be insane.
Their twitter feed is hilarious with the left losing it completely
(Looking at Richest of the Rich and the rules they follow is that they only highlight the richest of any given family)
I just got an email from an alma mater in the working class town of Pasadena, that their current financial drive so far has collected $3,194,895,506 from 14,325 donors. Obviously, the mean, media and mode will differ significantly as some of the donations are undoubtedly big.
So have ours (but only because HMG incentivised them though Feed in Tariffs).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/willyakowicz/2019/03/15/billionaires-multimillion-dollar-gifts-and-college-admissions-this-is-how-it-works/
Simply, they're reselling other peoples' insurance, and we could do *amazing* things if we had full access to their sensor data. Even today, though, our telematics model mean we're the most profitable auto insurer (in terms of loss ratio) in the world.
The Opposition to the Tories is splintered and the major element of it is at a comparatively low ebb of popularity (and also suffers from a highly inefficient pattern of distribution of the support that it does still enjoy.) So long as this continues there is no particular reason to expect a change of Government.
If Labour can't use this opening effectively it could do them some harm, it should be such an open goal; but actually it is quite tricky for them.
Well, yes. That's exactly what it is.
Most folk aren't sociopaths therefore the insights are banal common sense to the majority.
People are different and are not motivated by the same stuff. Therefore you tailor a message to the recipient for example.
For sociopaths it is a fascinating, almost magically revelatory way of getting folk to do what you want.
They, of course, tend to be over represented in senior positions.
To those with eyes to see, it's plain that Johnson is unfit for office. And it always had been, back to the days (I think) when John Major tried to blackball his place on the candidates list. Today's events- even if they are only half-truths- ought to confirm that.
But unfortunately for Michael, Rishi and Dominic, that rules them out as well, because they've gone along with it for the last couple of years. They knew (at least some of it) and stood by.
But the enormity of the blag that got us to this point- how do you credibly communicate it? The bigger the lie, the more easily it slips past people's mental defences and the harder it is to persuade people of the falsehood of the lie.
And so back to the central dilemma. The post-Johnson PM will need to be an anti-Johnson. The Ford after the Nixon, the Biden after the Trump. But how does an anti-Johnson get the profile to undermine and defeat BoJo?
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1397643136294338565?s=21
Next he'll be declaring hell yes hes tough enough to take on Dom.
Jo RichGuy without a harvard degree will surely find doors open others dont.
If your kid can cop it sure, might as well, but an academic dud you might be better served giving them a leg up another way.
There’s this belief here the that the scales will fall from the eyes of The Sheeple and everyone will realise that he’s turned the UK into a dystopian nightmare State, but that will never happen.
As for 'unfit for office', that's actually a matter for the voters. If true, then in 2019 the voters had to choose between two people 'unfit for office'. But on the polling at the moment given a perfectly decent if dull Labour leader he is out of sight behind.
Maybe the question is: Is Labour relevant and fit for office? They don't address majorities in middling Britain among the middling sort. Tories and Boris do. Perhaps the Tories are the only party fit for office in a Brexit world, and Labour look like yesterday's party, with yesterday's candidates talking a leftish politics that is strangely old fashioned.
I still suggest today's events are not very significant. The most interesting feature of it is the silence of the Labour left.
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-story-behind-jared-kushners-curious-acceptance-into-harvard
Of course Corbyn is also unfit for PM, and would have remained so even if he had somehow won an election.
It’s a bit like describing the Huntington as a small garden in a desert
If I can book it then hell yes
They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.
Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.
Crap investment.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1397650837888020488?s=19
Act first, think later, has never been carried further than that. No responsible government could have contemplated a lockdown before March, when the health implications became apparent.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2021/05/26/dominic-cummings-showed-heart-ruthless-totalitarian/
Huntingdon is very nice. Who needs Getty?.
Why were the Chinese welding people into their bloody homes? Why were they punching people not wearing masks?
It was clear it was a highly infectious respiratory disease, and it was clear it was headed our way
He's by some way the least objectionable of the last three Conservative PM'S.
Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.
Of course there will be those who will forever claim he was the greatest Prime Minister since the Blessed Margaret and those who will miss his wit, wisdom and optimism but, as sure as night follows day, he will become yesterday's man to a greater number. The drip drip of stories, crises and the sense of promises not delivered and commitments not fulfilled will combine to weaken him.
Ambitious younger politicians will see him as an obstacle and want him removed so they can have their time at the top table outside the shadow of the "Great Man".
This is why all political careers end in failure and Johnson's will be no exception. He will either be thrown out of office by the electorate, forced from office by his Party or, if he is able to leave on his own terms, he will live to see his reputation trashed and his achievements belittled by either ungrateful successors or the public.
It did get my attention though and I got my parents locked down at the end of Feb, as they are in thr bracket who are extremely high risk from serious consequences.
Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
·
25m
Uber formally recognising @GMB_union is a groundbreaking deal.
Congratulations to all at the @GMB_union who worked so hard to make this happen - the difference a union makes.
Who the actual fcuk runs social media for Sir K?
The world and a small dog are focused on Cummings and they spend their tweets on the GMB??
Neil Henderson
@hendopolis
·
2m
TELEGRAPH BUSINESS: Hunt for new
@Ofcom boss must start from scratch #TomorrowsPapersToday
Huntingdon & Jacquemart-André are my top museums although Frick is very good as well.
So that must mean Britain has a uniquely bad record at handling coronavirus? Surely
And yet, not. In the excess death chart, where we once had gold medal status, now we are waaaaay down at about 20th or lower. And yes, economically, we have had a particularly rough time, but similar-sized European countries have done about as bad - or even worse. Spain, Italy. Maybe France. (We still don't know the final scores on the doors)
Meanwhile, we are opening up a little quicker than some European peers, and we are no longer dying, and many others are still dying around the world
Johnson may get away with it. Again. And I am someone who believes Cummings, almost completely in this case (even if he is self-serving)