BMW CEO steps away after market loss

[MaximaGuy]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Elon May have a visionary mind but his business sense is non existent. The stock shows a P/E ratio of -41.97. Yep, that's negative. At some point the bill comes due and in some cases it has and those companies have turned Elon down.

https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/?symbol=TSLA&qsearchterm=tsla


Did you know what PE AMZN was back until 2005 (-ve) and it is 1T company
Did you know what PE NFLX was back until 2010 (-ve) and it is a monopoly in streaming.

P/E means nothing for companies that are revolutionizing the way we think and buy.

 

[PimTac]

"Musk using the SpaceX money to keep Tesla afloat was more a form of in-house corporate welfare. He was both the beggar and the donor."





Elon used his companies like a Shell game. He would make the grand announcement about Tesla and the share price would jump. He would then sell TSLA shares to fund his space company or the other one. It was price manipulation that just skirted the laws.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by MaximaGuy
Originally Posted by PimTac
Elon May have a visionary mind but his business sense is non existent. The stock shows a P/E ratio of -41.97. Yep, that's negative. At some point the bill comes due and in some cases it has and those companies have turned Elon down.

https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/?symbol=TSLA&qsearchterm=tsla


Did you know what PE AMZN was back until 2005 (-ve) and it is 1T company
Did you know what PE NFLX was back until 2010 (-ve) and it is a monopoly in streaming.

P/E means nothing for companies that are revolutionizing the way we think and buy.




A company can run a negative P/E as long as they have funding to carry it forward. Visibility is what investors want.

This reminds of the saying back in 1999 and 2007 that the economy is different this time. Everything reverts to the mean, always.

 

[MaximaGuy]

AMZN did not make money for well over 15 yrs and today they are a 1T company. AMZN forever has changed the way we think and shop and live - a true success story. Same will be the case with Tesla or any other company that cuts waste and crappp like the medical industry. Come to Austin, here there are emergency clinics on every street and the hospitals are like palaces (why would hospitals look like palaces -pure waste and abuse of system). Amazon or any other company will fix it - so goes auto makers, we cannot possibly dole out money for their mismanagement.

Now coming back to BMW, their cars are such a PITA to maintain, no sane person who is mechically inclined will touch it. My wife wanted to buy one just for the hype, put my foot down and said NO, we settled with a MB.

 

[Vern_in_IL]

BMW needs to get back to its roots!!

Performance cars, light weight, tech, compact and complex.

Performance= turbos and lightweight chassis, using high quality plastics and carbon
Tech= like headlight washers and high quality headlamp optics, complex and helps you drive.
compact= there should never be a SUV BMW, eliminate them.
Complex,= entire fender removal for water pump change out, "German engineering"

Build them in EU, kill the USA built "german" car! Stickers all over them in German, signifiying the quality and personal touch each inspection point got.

and Drivers that are willing to hog two parking spaces to protect their investment.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by Vern_in_IL
BMW needs to get back to its roots!!

Performance cars, light weight, tech, compact and complex.

Performance= turbos and lightweight chassis, using high quality plastics and carbon
Tech= like headlight washers and high quality headlamp optics, complex and helps you drive.
compact= there should never be a SUV BMW, eliminate them.
Complex,= entire fender removal for water pump change out, "German engineering"

Build them in EU, kill the USA built "german" car! Stickers all over them in German, signifiying the quality and personal touch each inspection point got.

and Drivers that are willing to hog two parking spaces to protect their investment.

For sentimental reasons it sounds good but that is not the future of transportation. That is what BMW is facing right now.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted by UncleDave
Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
Originally Posted by UncleDave
Do you feel the other auto companies did not receive "corporate welfare"?



UD





I do. But I don't feel that their entire existence is based almost entirely on it.

I am not even remotely "happy" about the bailouts, but these were at last valid and proven companies that had produced insane profits at one point in time, for a very long time. They weren't frontier or fringe investments.

Tesla was a venture capital investment that didn't even pay off for the US government.



Im going to agree to disagree - they would be gone if not for the loans, bailouts, subsidies, and bankruptcies, and special tax breaks like 176.

Tesla paid its loans back in full to the gov. Ford hasn't yet, and GM got to kiss off its investors and start over.

Its all on the stockholders at this point and what they are willing to accept.



You can't disagree that the other companies were "has-beens" when they took the deals.

Tesla was and is a "never-was" until this very day.

If I can't explain to the difference between investing into something that worked for a long time and then needed fixing vs. something that never got off the ground at all, then I truly don't know what to tell you except some basic classes on finance and investing might be in order.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted by UncleDave
Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
Originally Posted by UncleDave
Lets talk about spacex for a second

Whats better for America?

To keep buying RD-180's from the Russians - or to award an equally earned contract to an American company?

This isn't "subsidy" or "corporate welfare" - its a contract award.


UD


It isn't.

I said it was a combination of corporate welfare and being in the right place at the right time.

Had a space shuttle not exploded and our nation had no backup plan at all, chances are low that he would have a lucrative contract.

Were it not for corporate welfare, both companies would have never made it. Were it not for SpaceX contract, both would never have made it. Both blocks were required to keep them both afloat. Take away either one and either company comes crashing down.

Musk using the SpaceX money to keep Tesla afloat was more a form of in-house corporate welfare. He was both the beggar and the donor.




What corporate welfare did spaceX get that any other company in the space/ vertical market doesn't?

I don't disagree the two kept tesla alive, but thats the prerogative of any private companies owner to do with tech money and profit what he wishes- he was smart enough to build a better mousetrap and won his contracts accordingly.

UD




In this case, he had the right to direct his profits into a company dying despite a government handout, that is still not surviving even after directing SpaceX money at it.

If I were a Vet, and I gave a heart transplant to a stillborn cow after the government paid for a liver transplant, would I have "built a better mousetrap"?

You're trying to beat around the bush about the fact that this man's company burns through cash like a volcano and doesn't make any despite receiving crutch after crutch, but you aren't doing a very good job of it.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted by DoubleWasp


You can't disagree that the other companies were "has-beens" when they took the deals.

Tesla was and is a "never-was" until this very day.

If I can't explain to the difference between investing into something that worked for a long time and then needed fixing vs. something that never got off the ground at all, then I truly don't know what to tell you except some basic classes on finance and investing might be in order.


I would agree they were has beens- but they still took the money and BK

I understand what you mean about something that worked for a long time - and needed fixing vs something that never got off the ground.

I wouldn't characterize tesla as not getting off the ground.

 

[JeffKeryk]

You miss the point that Musk has done something that has never been done before.
He has built and sold an electric car from the ground up.
He had zero car building experience.
And he is succeeding.

Many seem to counter facts with made up scenarios.
So far he has proved the naysayers wrong.

People like me cheer his efforts and support those efforts by being an early adopter.
I know many electric car owners.
The Model 3 owners flat out love their cars.
Other electrics are done; they are in their 2nd generation and are still far behind Tesla's technology.
The new $90K Jag is an inferior challenger. The new Porsche is pulling back on range estimates.

Will Tesla ultimately survive? Most car makers ultimately fail or get bought out.
Musk has already changed the world.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted by DoubleWasp


In this case, he had the right to direct his profits into a company dying despite a government handout, that is still not surviving even after directing SpaceX money at it.

If I were a Vet, and I gave a heart transplant to a stillborn cow after the government paid for a liver transplant, would I have "built a better mousetrap"?

You're trying to beat around the bush about the fact that this man's company burns through cash like a volcano and doesn't make any despite receiving crutch after crutch, but you aren't doing a very good job of it.


Tesla is still here - so by definition it is surviving.

Telsa did not get a hand out they took a loan and paid it back - GM/Ford and Chrysler took hands outs/ bailouts - they aren't the same

You are trying to conflate loans with hand outs, and subsidies and lump them into the same thing. They are not.

Don't try to put words in my mouth. Im not arguing tesla is profitable and not burning cash - show me where I claimed otherwise.

You cant because I didnt.

It is being wholly supported by its investor base.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by nthach
Originally Posted by PimTac
Back to BMW since that was the topic before the Tesla gushies took it over.

BMW needs to either ally itself or merge or be merged. That is the trend.

Today's news is showing a likely Ford Volkswagen tie up on electric and autonomous vehicles. That's the trend.

Or, you can stay the same and wither or burn your bridges as some have done.

BMW has a spotty history with collaborations. The alliance that built the engines for the BMW-era Minis with Chrysler and Peugeot was a flop, so was the Global Hybrid Cooperation with DaimlerChrysler and GM. Their ownership of Rover/Land Rover was short-lived as well.

I can see Toyota buying out BMW or working more with them if the new Supra proves to be a success for both parties. However, Toyota wants Lexus to be more autonomous from the mothership, and they certainly don't want to be seen as snobby if they swallowed up BMW and be the third largest player in luxury cars(BMW, Lexus, Rolls-Royce).

Toyota is in bed with BMW for quite some time. BMW is delivering them small diesels for Euro market.

 

[4WD]

Jeff … There's a huge difference in folks wanting this company to succeed and wanting one. I can easily buy one or two, just don't wanna … Wish them well.
I don't like the vehicles right now and the time spent charging them.
I can wait a while longer until they are mainstream, or have ground clearance, or charge faster, or thousands of them have 200k on the clock, or they put a charger in the sand at 5 mile cut so I can charge up before the water crossing

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by UncleDave
Originally Posted by edyvw
[
1. Tesla never intended to be hybrid because they would crash and burn.
2. As for control system, I am familiar of F35 control system, and would not like anything like that to have to deal with in traffic. There is a reason why that control system is on the aircraft.
Again, confirmation that people who are buying Tesla are obsessed with entertainment and video games.



on #2 - Why would I or anyone here believe anything you say vs what Sandy Munro says?



UD

F35 is not anymore some big secret, and I am practically familiar with it.
I have a friend who is F16 pilot, and who thinks that everything that has an on/off button should be designed to operate like on F16. There is saying in AF: if there is a problem, call F16 pilot, they "know" everything. Personally, I would not give my friend anything that moves on a ground. Great pilot, but horrible driver.
However, you do not have to be personally familiar with avionics of any particular aircraft to figure it out that aircraft and vehicle are two modes of transportation operating in different environment, hence requiring different solutions.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted by edyvw
[/quote]
F35 is not anymore some big secret, and I am practically familiar with it.
I have a friend who is F16 pilot, and who thinks that everything that has an on/off button should be designed to operate like on F16. There is saying in AF: if there is a problem, call F16 pilot, they "know" everything. Personally, I would not give my friend anything that moves on a ground. Great pilot, but horrible driver.
However, you do not have to be personally familiar with avionics of any particular aircraft to figure it out that aircraft and vehicle are two modes of transportation operating in different environment, hence requiring different solutions.


I never said it was a big secret.

Tesla is the only car maker using aerospace level components.

The control board is just one example of this major difference.

Latency between the systems is huge being able to process multiple cameras and sensors quickly.



UD

 

[edyvw]

Quote


I never said it was a big secret.

Tesla is the only car maker using aerospace level components.

The control board is just one example of this major difference.

Latency between the systems is huge being able to process multiple cameras and sensors quickly.



UD







Such as?
And other cars do not process information quickly? What is quickly? How quickly? How faster than others?
And question is: why you need F35 like interface and controls in an vehicle? What is the point? What are you trying to achieve?

 

[UncleDave]

Such as the main control board Sandy was holding in his hand.

Other cars do not process information as quickly.

He explains all this in great detail.

I never said you need an F35 like "interface and control".


UD

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by UncleDave
Such as the main control board Sandy was holding in his hand.

Other cars do not process information as quickly.

He explains all this in great detail.

I never said you need an F35 like "interface and control".


UD



OK, and evidence to that is where? Sandy said?
And, why is that important even if true? Why is that important for driver driving on I405 or whatever?
Though, considering auto pilot issues Tesla has, maybe F35 analogy is correct one

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted by edyvw

OK, and evidence to that is where? Sandy said?
And, why is that important even if true? Why is that important for driver driving on I405 or whatever?
Though, considering auto pilot issues Tesla has, maybe F35 analogy is correct one

Yes Sandy said it - there are hours of comprehensive breakdown info on this.
I provided at least one link already
The autoline daily after hours sessions with him are well worth watching.

It important because its an advantage in many areas - control of breaking, crash avoidance, AWD, packaging, how many individual components can be replaced with one board vs needing several, reducing the number of computers and wiring needed. There are many advantages to this level of tech.

Problems and all - Tesla still has the most advanced control system available and is the only automaker that can perform over the air updates to its systems.

Munro is the go to company for this information - its where the auto manufacturers to go learn about their competition.

UD

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by UncleDave
Originally Posted by edyvw

OK, and evidence to that is where? Sandy said?
And, why is that important even if true? Why is that important for driver driving on I405 or whatever?
Though, considering auto pilot issues Tesla has, maybe F35 analogy is correct one

Yes Sandy said it - there are hours of comprehensive breakdown info on this.
I provided at least one link already
The autoline daily after hours sessions with him are well worth watching.

It important because its an advantage in many areas - control of breaking, crash avoidance, AWD, packaging, how many individual components can be replaced with one board vs needing several, reducing the number of computers and wiring needed. There are many advantages to this level of tech.

Problems and all - Tesla still has the most advanced control system available and is the only automaker that can perform over the air updates to its systems.

Munro is the go to company for this information - its where the auto manufacturers to go learn about their competition.

UD

So basically, you are buying public transportation?
As for over the air updates, why would I want that?
Again proof that vehicle is made to appeal video game audience.
And Sandy besides working on F35, Tesla, worked on BMW? Audi? Lexus?