quote:
Point taken. Do you have any opinion-any whatsoever-on the 66% of the other companies mentioned in the OP and in subsequent follow-up responses?

I've already commented that I (and many others) think Tesla is WILDLY over valued and I wouldn't speculate on it. The Tesla cars are amazing, but not profitable.

As far as Space X, it's

* dependent on gov't subsides/policy
* competing against gov't subsidized agencies
* HIGHLY speculative due to above and VERY small number of potential customers
* private, so we don't even know the real financial picture and can't invest in it anyway.

Musk is cool as hell, but he's a dreamer. He only cares about these companies to create the money and technology needed to colonize space and save the human race from a mass extinction event. More power to him for his idealistic ambitions, but I'd prefer to invest with more practical men focused on creating wealth for me, not saving the world.

Carl Ichan isn't 5% the man Musk is, but I'd invest in him before Musk.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by lynxcat

Member since Jan 2008

24231 posts

Posted on 5/10/16 at 10:31 am to Ole War Skule

quote:
Carl Ichan isn't 5% the man Musk is, but I'd invest in him before Musk.

We are mixing apples and wrenches. Investing versus quality of product/company are two very different things.

However, I do think if Tesla finds a way to manufacture enough Model 3's to meet demand that the stock will soar. The Model 3 is the real test because it dramatically changes the auto landscape by adding hundreds of thousands of electric vehicles to the road (and not all of them will be subsidized).

I have doubts that Tesla can meet the incredible demand for the Model 3. The scale of production needs has to frighten Musk at the moment.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by GFunk

Denham Springs

Member since Feb 2011

14967 posts

Posted on 5/10/16 at 11:04 am to Ole War Skule

quote:
Ole War Skule

quote:
* competing against gov't subsidized agencies

Agreed here. Boeing/Lockheed Martin are paid the tune of a billion dollars a year through their "Launch Alliance," to stay on "retainer".

But when their competitor-the Falcon/9 from SpaceX-shows that they can produce a rocket for 40-60% less, reuse it over and over and can land them autonomously...and they're already ok'd for military payloads...who do you really think is going to end up dominant in that market?

I'm asking honestly.

1 ...

Report Post

Money Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board