Tesla, Amazon & Google...Buy these stocks and here is why...

[atltrader]

I'm somewhat new into the retail investing market having recently signed up with M1 Finance earlier this year to get a little more skin in the game. They make it really easy to buy into companies even if you don't have the bank to buy complete shares of a $1000+ stock (like Google, Tesla, etc.)

One stock I didn't do enough homework on was Nikola who's trying to carve out their nitch into the EV marketplace. The stock has been volatile to say the least over the last few months and I'm hoping it will bottom out soon enough where I can purchase a little bit of it once again.

Their claim to fame in the market space is to produce a hydrogen cell based engine that can go longer distances than the basic electric battery we see out now but they have yet to get anything to production at this time. Many analysts believe they are not well positioned to go up against the likes of Tesla but if they get things better organized by the end of the year, I'm sure the stock will see higher gains over the next year.

 

[fast306stang]

I bought Tesla close to $700 and as you said it fell like a stone but I held and sold at just over $1500

Wish I would have held. My plan was to buy back in when it fell to $400 again. Well, that never happened lol

 

[rockyfatcat]

The reason to invest in driverless technology is not because of what it is, but what it will be.

There are 3 companies actively invested in providing driverless technology, Tesla, google and there is a third.

Right now it is a novelty. What will happen when it transforms the transportation industry? It is not a question on if, but a question of when. One of the biggest costs in the transportation industry is the driver. He has to stop to eat, sleep, and poop.

When the driver is removed, the vehicle will never speed, The machine will never fall asleep, or get distracted, it will not need to stop except for programmed stops like refueling.

Fixed costs vs recurring costs. Why is every soda fountain in every fast food restaurant on the customer side if the restaurant? Because the 'customer service specialist' never has to fill up another cup. Another cost shifted permanently away from the owner.

The upfront costs in implementing driverless technology is massive. Buy like the soda fountain. The payoff is over $100,000 per year per truck, for every driver no longer employed.

 

[TheGman]

Wish I would have held. My plan was to buy back in when it fell to $400 again. Well, that never happened lol

Yep i usually out smart myself for once I didnt

 

[Nuke And Juke]

Winner winner chicken dinner for Q2 results

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk

 

[TheGman]

Qualcomm did well as did Amazon and Apple

 

[Fish Fry]

I bought 5 shares of Amazon in mid-April - Alas, I should have been committed like a pig to bacon instead of chicken to egg.......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[spencer60]

I'm somewhat new into the retail investing market having recently signed up with M1 Finance earlier this year to get a little more skin in the game. They make it really easy to buy into companies even if you don't have the bank to buy complete shares of a $1000+ stock (like Google, Tesla, etc.)

One stock I didn't do enough homework on was Nikola who's trying to carve out their nitch into the EV marketplace. The stock has been volatile to say the least over the last few months and I'm hoping it will bottom out soon enough where I can purchase a little bit of it once again.

Their claim to fame in the market space is to produce a hydrogen cell based engine that can go longer distances than the basic electric battery we see out now but they have yet to get anything to production at this time. Many analysts believe they are not well positioned to go up against the likes of Tesla but if they get things better organized by the end of the year, I'm sure the stock will see higher gains over the next year.

I honestly would never invest in a hydrogen-based model. They would have to spin up a full hydrogen delivery system, like the Tesla SuperCharger Network, but without the basic infrastructure Tesla was able to leverage.

Every SuperCharger site taps into the national electric grid. There simply isn't an easy way to deliver H to tens of thousands of locations across the US.

We may see H vehicles in play for certain situations, things lke buses and delivery vehicles, with a home base that can supply hydrogen, but this is an order of magnitude more difficult than the delivery of electrons to EVs, and will be for the next 100 years or so at least.

The reason to invest in driverless technology is not because of what it is, but what it will be.

There are 3 companies actively invested in providing driverless technology, Tesla, google and there is a third.

Right now it is a novelty. What will happen when it transforms the transportation industry? It is not a question on if, but a question of when. One of the biggest costs in the transportation industry is the driver. He has to stop to eat, sleep, and poop.

When the driver is removed, the vehicle will never speed, The machine will never fall asleep, or get distracted, it will not need to stop except for programmed stops like refueling.

Fixed costs vs recurring costs. Why is every soda fountain in every fast food restaurant on the customer side if the restaurant? Because the 'customer service specialist' never has to fill up another cup. Another cost shifted permanently away from the owner.

The upfront costs in implementing driverless technology is massive. Buy like the soda fountain. The payoff is over $100,000 per year per truck, for every driver no longer employed.

I agree that the pendulum will eventually swing towards driverless vehicles. As I mentioned in 50 years it will probably be a felony to drive a car on the roads yourself.

But will any of the companies you're investing in today be there to take advantage of that? I highly doubt it.

The technical part is interesting, but without a market it's simply lab work. By the time DVs are a real marketable commodity, fully supported by the legal and insurance system, everyone who wants it will be able to either develop it cheaply, or simply buy it off the shelf from an OEM.

There's the whole myth of the 'first mover advantage' left over from the tech bubble of the ought's The real fact is that getting there first, like Tesla is doing just makes them the MySpace of the car world.

Anyone who ever saw the movie Tucker knows that a car can be a technological marvel and still tank. While I think Tesla will recoup it's investment in self-driving technology over the long haul, they will simply be another OEM supplying Ford, GM and the rest with 'systems' that the majors will use to build SDV with.

I'm sure Tesla will continue to have an exciting stock trajectory over the next decade, but it's still a short-term play when it comes to self-driving vehicles.

 

[rockyfatcat]

I honestly would never invest in a hydrogen-based model. They would have to spin up a full hydrogen delivery system, like the Tesla SuperCharger Network, but without the basic infrastructure Tesla was able to leverage.

Every SuperCharger site taps into the national electric grid. There simply isn't an easy way to deliver H to tens of thousands of locations across the US.

We may see H vehicles in play for certain situations, things lke buses and delivery vehicles, with a home base that can supply hydrogen, but this is an order of magnitude more difficult than the delivery of electrons to EVs, and will be for the next 100 years or so at least.

A couple things: The Tucker was great car. It got the Facebook/Twitter/Google/Fake news version for the day evil public relations campaign from the big three automakers to drive the reputation into the dirt, much like the coordinated media/democrat assault on Donald Trump today. Except Tucker didn't have any way to push back.

The Hydrogen equation is easier. But the solution to the hydrogen problem was outlawed by the government. (https://unitednuclear.com/) I think they took down all the information about their project. Long story short they had a safe way to store hydrogen But the material needed to store the hydrogen was the material needed to turn a nuclear weapon into a thermonuclear weapon. Not like anyone outside of government has made a nuclear weapon.

Without that material. You would either need a storage tank the size of a septic tank or by using liquid hydrogen. In an accident you would either get barbecued, or flash frozen and then barbecued.

As far as the driverless OTR trucking. There is a massively huge financial incentive to remove the driver from the vehicle. About 100k per vehicle per year. With those kind of numbers. It's a question of when, not if.

 

[spencer60]

I could absolutely see trucks being the first legal DVs on the road. They are already a huge investment so fitting them with the required hardware, senors, monitors, etc. would be a smaller percentage of the overall costs.

They also can be run over set routes, and many fleets already have real-time feedback on location, speed, etc. for tracking purposes.

And as you mention, the cost savings would make them very attractive for fleets, especially since without having to worry about drivers, they could be on the road 24x7x365.

However I still think the first real DVs will be on the military side. After all, the whole basis of today's SDVs were the various DARPA Challenges that started off in 2004.

Imagine what a fighter jet could do if it didn't have to worry about how many gees it was subjecting the pilot to. How small, fast and nimble could you make it if you didn't need the double and triple redundancy required to protect your expensive and delicate human inside?

And with all that redundant gear and space out of the way, you can have a much larger ordnance load, and a much lower cost, meaning you can field far more of them. You would still need a human in the loop, but they would be much higher up in the food chain, giving orders rather than trying to steer the plane.

Same logic applies to tanks, ships and any other piece of major military hardware that's currently manned. The first major military that goes to DVs will become one of the most potent militaries in the world almost overnight.


On the subject of Tucker, you're right that the false accusations and outright slander against what was a ground breaking car was what killed it. However that was mostly instigated by the big Detroit manufacturers of the day.

Once GM, Ford, VW and such have good solid EVs to compete with Tesla, we may see a replay of that. To be fair, there's lots of dirt they could spread about Tesla that would be perfectly true. Mostly around their QC and service issues, but if you are Liberal-minded their 'unfair labor practices' (aka making people work hard) come to mind.

If you look at the early history of the car, almost none of the companies that were so revolutionary at the time even exist today as brands, and none of them are the independent companies they started off as. I just don't see Tesla being an independent EV company in 20 years. They will have sold out or merged with a larger company, or will at best be one of many OEMs for batteries and SDV tech.