Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I invested because I think their vision and execution will lead to them selling a ton of products and services.

Their vision is much bigger than the auto industry. It is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.

I like their execution so far with the model 3, model y, and their focus on making a ton of batteries efficiently.

They seem to be one of the most innovative companies in the world: superchargers, solar roofs, power walls, energy storage, electric cars, self driving cars, etc... and their innovation seems to be based on inventing on principle as coined by Bret Victor.

The environment may be in flux with the financial markets frothy and governments are devaluing money, but I sure like this company’s prospects. I assign them many multiples over GM, Ford, etc... In the last 10 years, Tesla has started selling energy storage, power walls, solar roofs, etc.. . What have Ford and GM done in the same timeframe? Project out relative innovation rates over the next 5-10 years.




If you have any idea what you're doing in terms of investing in any faint sense of traditionally formal rigor, you'd not touch Tesla with a tent pole no matter what you "believe" it's growth potential is. It's orders of magnitude away from any sensible by the books calculation on what Tesla's valuation should be.

Just concede that you invested because you felt like it. It's probably okay, you very well might end up making a ton, and honestly who's to say the traditional methods are correct or are even applicable in 2020? But let's not kid ourselves trying to justify Tesla's value using traditional metrics.


Tesla is a meme stock. All that traditional investment crap doesn’t apply. There is literally no point in trying to reason about where the price should be. It’s like trying to evaluate what a fair price for Bitcoin is.


Strawman argument. I never tried to justify the value using traditional metrics. Then you go and knock down your own traditional metrics argument.

And you try to tell me to concede. Do you not have any other way to evaluate stocks than traditional metrics?

You had no idea at what price point I invested. I mostly invested in the 200s and 300s pre-split. It split 5/1. It is over 600 today. Does a 60b valuation of Tesla sound like a deal?

When all you have is a hammer, everything that isn’t a nail must be bad.


As I said, the people who invested in Tesla are clearly richer, and the people who did not aren't. In the end does anything else matter?


^ specialist in straw man arguments found solely in your own head

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/pe-rat...


...you're really going to compare Amazon at 91 P/E to Tesla at 1224? And you think this is helping your argument, do you?


Amazon used to be 3000 P/E. Are you going to not even get the facts straight to attack my argument? It is right there in the link I shared.

Look at 2012 and 2013 Amazon. Peaked at over 3600 PE for one quarter and for several quarters it was over 1000 PE.

Why don’t you look at the entire history? The last column is the PE.

2014-03-31 336.37 $0.63 533.91

2013-12-31 398.79 $0.58 687.57

2013-09-30 312.64 $0.28 1116.57

The previous 3 quarters it lost money and the one before that it had a 3000+ PE quarter.

Also the 4 quarters after this, Amazon lost money.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: