Octopus Overlords

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 2:47 pm How many Tesla's would they have to sell per year to be worth $200 share? If you can't answer that, you shouldn't buy it.

Incentive mechanism for zero- and low-emission vehicles (ZLEV)

A ZLEV is defined in the Regulation as a passenger car or a van with CO2 emissions between 0 and 50 g/km.

To incentivise the uptake of ZLEV, a crediting system is introduced from 2025 on.

The specific CO2 emission target of a manufacturer will be relaxed if its share of ZLEV registered in a given year exceeds the following benchmarks:

Cars: 15% ZLEV from 2025 on and 35% ZLEV from 2030 on
Vans: 15% ZLEV from 2025 on and 30% ZLEV from 2030 on

A one percentage point exceedance of the ZLEV benchmark will increase the manufacturer’s CO2 target (in g CO2/km) by one percent. The target relaxation is capped at maximum 5% to safeguard the environmental integrity of the Regulation.

For calculating the ZLEV share in a manufacturer’s fleet, an accounting rule applies. This gives a greater weight to ZLEV with lower CO2 emissions.

In addition, for cars only, during the period 2025 to 2030, a greater weight is given to ZLEV registered in Member States with a low ZLEV uptake in 2017, and this as long as the ZLEV share in the Member State’s fleet of newly registered cars does not exceed 5%.
Pooling, exemptions and derogations

The provisions on pooling between manufacturers are the same as under the current Regulations. Pooling between car and van manufacturers is not possible.

The exemption possibility for manufacturers registering less than 1,000 cars or vans per year, as well as the derogation possibility for “small volume” car and van manufacturers, has also been maintained.

The derogation possibility for “niche” car manufacturers, i.e. those registering between 10,000 and 300,000 cars per year, will end after the year 2028. In the years 2025 to 2028, the derogation target for those manufacturers will be 15% below the 2021 derogation target.

Flexibilities. Certain flexibilities are available for manufacturers, as follows:

Pooling—Several manufacturers may form a pool to jointly meet their CO2 emission targets.
Low volume manufacturers—Manufacturers with fewer than 10,000 new cars registered per annum may apply to the European Commission for a derogation from the specific emission targets. Several conditions apply.
Eco-innovation—Manufacturers may apply for credits for innovative CO2 reducing technologies which are not accounted for in the current test cycle—for example, energy efficient lights. The total contribution of eco-innovation credits is limited to 7 g CO2/km in each manufacturers average specific target.

Excess Emissions Premium. Manufacturers who miss their average CO2 targets are subject to penalties:

From 2012 to 2018, the penalties are €5 per vehicle for the first g/km of CO2; €15 for the second gram; €25 for the third gram; €95 from the fourth gram onwards.
From 2019, manufacturers pay €95 for each g/km exceeding the target.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:03 pm Well, it's taken them 7 years to make 1.7 billion in credits. That doesn't sound that impressive.

It's a nice offset that helps legitimize a higher profit margin than traditional automakers, but you still have to know how much profit they get on each vehicle and then multiply it accordingly. It doesn't really change the original question.

Over the weekend, the Financial Times reported that Tesla and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) have entered into an agreement that will deliver Tesla a fresh influx of cash and deliver FCA from the hands of Europe's tough new emissions regulations. Beginning next year, new European Commission rules begin to phase in that require a car maker's fleet-wide emissions to average no higher than 95g/CO2/km—a figure that works out at roughly 57mpg for gasoline vehicles, or 76mpg for diesel-powered vehicles.

From 2020, 95 percent of an automaker's new cars sold in the EU have to meet this target, with the remaining 5 percent falling under the law in 2021. And the penalties for failing are draconian: a €95 ($107) "excess emissions premium" per gram of CO2 over the target, for every single car registered in the EU that year. For some OEMs, this has the potential to be ruinous; if FCA's portfolio were the same in 2021 as it was in 2018, the automaker would have to pay some €2.77 billion ($3.12 billion), out of total net global profits of €3.63 billion ($4.1 billion).

LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:46 pm But please talking. I need to come to my senses.

Although the exact financial terms of the deal are unknown, the FT says the agreement is in the range of "hundreds of millions of euros." Interestingly, the FT also reports that Tesla had extended the offer to other OEMs to join this emissions pool but that none had accepted by the March 25th deadline.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:29 am Am awful lot of that income is dependent on fickle European governments and presumably the destruction of many of their own existing automakers.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:52 pmZax tell me this

Stocks fell on Friday after the release of stronger jobs data dampened hope for easier Federal Reserve monetary policy.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average pulled back 41 points, while the S&P 500 lost 0.2%. The Nasdaq Composite also slipped 0.2% as semiconductor stocks fell broadly.
...
Investors were betting heavily on the Fed cutting rates later this month heading into Friday’s session. CME Group’s FedWatch tool showed expectations for a rate cut in July were at 100%. Last month, the Fed said it would “act as appropriate” to maintain the current U.S. economic expansion, which is the longest in history.

But Friday’s jobs report tempered expectations for aggressive monetary policy. Market expectations for a 50 basis-point rate cut fell to just 9% from 29%, CME’s FedWatch tool showed. Expectations for a cut of 25 basis points, however, rose to 91% from 70.8%.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:17 am

LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:52 pmZax tell me this

I think everyone here knows my thoughts on Tesla. In any event, I'm comfortable gushing in the Tesla thread, but not in the investment thread. I have a pretty high tolerance for risk in my TSLA investment, and I would not want anyone to make that jump based on my advice. I'll recommend the cars highly, but not the stock.

If you're interested in someone else's long-winded diatribe on TSLA, though, I did come across this manifesto over the weekend. This dude largely lays out the bull case in a fairly coherent way. I will say that his higher-end estimates are ridiculous even in my view, he's more defensive of Musk in the 'pedo guy' incident than I am, and that he has a serious case of it's-vs-its confusion that boils my blood. But if you take the 30 minutes to read it, you'll get an idea of the general reasoning behind those who are still in the stock.

hitbyambulance wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2019 10:03 pm super late to the party here. i figured i should get over my fear of the stock market and not have basically all my savings in a savings account. where do i start? if anyone can help via email, i can provide more of my details.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 2:49 pm I have sold everything broad based myself and gone to cash with the exception of 401(k) investments. I do have a few specifically chosen stocks.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 3:44 pmwe don't know where else to put our retirement or investment in our future being.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 3:48 pm It's coming soon.

I know because my dad, who demanded that I take his account to cash a year ago is now asking me to load up on index funds. He also asked about some OTC "drone company". He's like a retail behaviour bellwether.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:39 pm That's how you do it. More debt equals bigger assets after you saddle the bag holders with the burden.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:48 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:39 pm That's how you do it. More debt equals bigger assets after you saddle the bag holders with the burden.

That depends on if you're a bag holder, no? Eventually there's not a greater fool.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 3:02 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:48 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:39 pm That's how you do it. More debt equals bigger assets after you saddle the bag holders with the burden.

That depends on if you're a bag holder, no? Eventually there's not a greater fool.

Right. But nobody thinks that they're that fool. It's why we have the finance industry and LBOs.

Going from 6x to 7x EBITDA isn't a backbreaker.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:39 pm That's how you do it. More debt equals bigger assets after you saddle the bag holders with the burden.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:21 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:39 pm That's how you do it. More debt equals bigger assets after you saddle the bag holders with the burden.

I am under the impression that assets aren't something "exponential growth" companies want, which only increases their reliance on debt and high operating costs.

General Electric shares saw their biggest drop in more than a decade Thursday after Madoff whistleblower Harry Markopolos targeted the conglomerate in a new report, accusing it of issuing fraudulent financial statements to hide the extent of its problems.

A website has been set up to disseminate the report, www.GEfraud.com, where Markopolos calls it “a bigger fraud than Enron.” The financial investigator, who was probing GE for an unidentified hedge fund, writes that after more than a year of research he has discovered “an Enronesque business approach that has left GE on the verge of insolvency.”

“My team has spent the past 7 months analyzing GE’s accounting and we believe the $38 Billion in fraud we’ve come across is merely the tip of the iceberg,” Markopolos said in the 175-page report. Markopolos alleges that GE has a “long history” of accounting fraud, dating to as early as 1995, when it was run by Jack Welch.
...
GE’s CEO issued a statement calling the allegations false, and driven by market manipulation.

“GE will always take any allegation of financial misconduct seriously. But this is market manipulation – pure and simple,” Lawrence Culp, chairman and CEO of GE said in a statement. “Mr. Markopolos’s report contains false statements of fact and these claims could have been corrected if he had checked them with GE before publishing the report.”

Culp said the fact that Markopolos never talked to company officials before publishing the report “goes to show that he is not interested in accurate financial analysis, but solely in generating downward volatility in GE stock so that he and his undisclosed hedge fund partner can personally profit.”

GE CEO Larry Culp bought nearly $2 million worth of the company’s stock after fraud accusation

This is breaking news. Please check back for updates.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:11 pm CNBC

General Electric shares saw their biggest drop in more than a decade Thursday after Madoff whistleblower Harry Markopolos targeted the conglomerate in a new report, accusing it of issuing fraudulent financial statements to hide the extent of its problems.

A Thursday evening filing with the SEC revealed that Culp bought 252,200 shares for about $7.93 each. Culp, who took over the struggling industrial conglomerate last year, has roughly doubled his holding of GE shares this week, according to the filing.

Shares of GE were up about 2.5% in after-hours trading.
...
Leslie Seidman, a GE board director and chair of its audit committee, also pushed back on the Markopolos report, which she said contained “numerous novel interpretations and downright mistakes about the actual accounting requirements.”

G.E. is already under investigation by the S.E.C. and the Justice Department for potential accounting problems within its insurance holdings and power division. It has denied accounting fraud in that case.

Peloton joins a slew of unprofitable unicorns now trading on public markets. Both Uber and Lyft, two of the largest companies to go public this year, have fallen below their IPO prices as they struggle to turn a profit.

Charles Schwab fired the latest shot in the war over fees charged by online brokers, announcing Tuesday that it plans to eliminate commissions for trading stocks, ETFs and options on its mobile and web platforms.

The move, which will take effect on October 7, will be available for securities listed on US and Canadian exchanges.

Schwab's news comes a week after rival Interactive Brokers Group rolled out its new IBKR Lite service, which also eliminated commissions for US-listed stocks and ETFs. The entire discount brokerage industry is dealing with tough competition from upstarts like Robinhood, which already offer trading services with no or low commissions via popular mobile apps.
...
Shares of Schwab (SCHW) fell 10% on the news, as investors clearly seemed worried about the loss of a lucrative stream of revenue from fees and the potential impact this would have on Schwab's profits. The company had been charging commissions of $4.95 a trade.

Interactive Brokers (IBKR) shares tumbled 9%. Competitors E-Trade (ETFC) and TD Ameritrade (AMTD) were hit even harder, plummeting 16% and 25% respectively. Investors will probably expect both discount brokers to counter the moves of Schwab and Interactive Brokers or risk losing market share.

Both companies still charge standard commissions of about $6.95 a trade.

TD Ameritrade spokeswoman Becky Nilya said in a statement to CNN Business that it was too soon for the company to respond directly to Schwab's move.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 1:33 pm "Losers" do indeed have value as tax offsets. To keep things simple, you'll want to sell them in the same tax year as any realized gains.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 1:53 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 1:33 pm "Losers" do indeed have value as tax offsets. To keep things simple, you'll want to sell them in the same tax year as any realized gains.

That's what I figure. Even if the cost is small at this point. I would guess a $300 gain and offset would be the perfect way to learn how the mechanism works and the taxes that report it.

I'm afraid to have seller's remorse right now, though. Like if I sold, say 3 shares of TSLA end enough shares of CVS to show $300ish in loss, that both will instantly jump to spite me.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 1:57 pm

LordMortis wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 1:53 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 1:33 pm "Losers" do indeed have value as tax offsets. To keep things simple, you'll want to sell them in the same tax year as any realized gains.

That's what I figure. Even if the cost is small at this point. I would guess a $300 gain and offset would be the perfect way to learn how the mechanism works and the taxes that report it.

I'm afraid to have seller's remorse right now, though. Like if I sold, say 3 shares of TSLA end enough shares of CVS to show $300ish in loss, that both will instantly jump to spite me.

Keep in mind that the tax rate for long term and short term cap gains are different so if you've had the CVS for over a year it's not going to be a 1 for 1 offset.