Welcome to Thunderdome

Leisher wrote: Tesla laying off folks.

I really wonder where Tesla will be in 6 years once more competition arrives. I was.. tempted to buy one several times in the past few years, but I'm waiting until real car makers put out some models.

Porsche's Taycan, Audi's e-tron, it's all getting more exciting.

But with current batteries, electric cars a disposable. Unless you want to replace the 'engine' every 5 years.

What are the batteries doing to the landfills? Or are they 100% recyclable?

Cakedaddy wrote: But with current batteries, electric cars a disposable. Unless you want to replace the 'engine' every 5 years

Replacing a battery != replacing a car. I'm beginning to wonder what you've done with your kids' toys your whole life... And it's more like 7 to 10 years, not 5. And I like to go fast. Also ICE cars need much more maintenance, etc, etc.

Cakedaddy wrote: What are the batteries doing to the landfills? Or are they 100% recyclable?

Recycled. No idea what % is reusable.

It's actually a very high percentage that's recycled in a Lithium Ion battery. That may have something to do with the high cost of them. It looks incredibly labor intensive.

https://www.batterysolutions.com/recycl ... -recycled/

Cakedaddy wrote: But with current batteries, electric cars a disposable. Unless you want to replace the 'engine' every 5 years.

What are the batteries doing to the landfills? Or are they 100% recyclable?

A.2015 LEAF is expected to still have 85% better life at five years.

Doesn't your leaf have trouble going more than 50 miles right now?

Ya. And PC parts are recycled too. Ask all the third world countries that have them now.

Cakedaddy wrote: Doesn't your leaf have trouble going more than 50 miles right now?

No? Drove 75 on a single charge the other day.

Unless you're trying to mileage shame me? Which wasn't the subject under discussion.

I thought you had reported that you couldn't make the planned school trips of 75 miles due to cold. I must have my numbers wrong.

But then, isn't 75 miles significantly less than 85% of new batteries? Or, is your's not a 2015/could have gone way more than 75 miles. I'm asking, because the little bit of reading I've done (stressing little bit), regardless of what the manufacturer estimates, people are dumping the car or the batteries after less than 5 years, or living with significantly less (<30%) original range.

Mileage shaming?

Not cool, bro.

TheCatt wrote: Mileage shaming?

Not cool, bro.

You are right. Sorry Gordon. WWGD.

First thing in the morning, 100% charge, my guess-o-meter reads 95+ miles. After I drive 4 miles, it reads about 80 miles. At that point, with city driving, it's more or less accurate. That's a 2015.

Every model year, the range is getting higher. I think I heard 2019s are 130ish miles.

So when I lose my first battery bar, at 85%, I should still be getting 70 miles on a charge.

Also bought the extended warranty, which covers the battery, for $2k. So in 5 more years (when i haven't paid for a single oil change or gallon of gas) when I'm flirting with 8 bars of battery, I get a new $5k+ battery for free ($2k in 2018 dollars). Extended warranty still exists if I sell the car.

For the reason I need it, the is the best and most awesome car in the universes. It obviously wouldn't work for everyone. Or people in apartments.

But the battery doesn't get replaced in 5 years, I don't think in any electric car.

Cakedaddy wrote: Ya. And PC parts are recycled too. Ask all the third world countries that have them now.

I think the issue will arise when the electric car is common place. Think of all the old farm steads and what not with old rusting husks sitting out. I would imagine the environmental impact would be greater with the electric cars over the ICE cars.

China's economic growth was the slowest it's been in 30 years

The agency's updated World Economic Outlook lowered estimates for growth in 2019 by 0.2 percentage points to 3.5%, its second downward revision, this time on account of weakness in Germany and Turkey. But the new report, released as bankers and other global leaders gathered for an annual economic conference in Davos, Switzerland, made clear that the biggest known risks to growth are the unresolved trade war between the United States and China, and the possibility of Britain exiting the European Union without a deal.

Ray Diallo sees significant risk of possible recession in 2020.

Honestly, I'm posting this because of the double-hedged headline "significant risk" "possible recession".

At this point, the Fed should stop raising rates. There's enough bearish information out there (Europe, China, even the US to a lesser extent) to put the halt on increases. Inflation is nowhere to be seen, etc.

The big issue is what happens with trade. If the US-China come to an agreement, we'll see things start to heat back up in 3 to 6 months, and may even avoid the 2020 recession purely based on that bump carrying things through.

Overall, I'd still be cautious on stocks. I would guess stocks end this year up, overall, but in the 4-10% range.

TheCatt wrote: At this point, the Fed should stop raising rates. There's enough bearish information out there (Europe, China, even the US to a lesser extent) to put the halt on increases. Inflation is nowhere to be seen, etc.

I really think they are raising the rates to give them some cushion between now and when it crashes. Not sure how many arrows were left in the quiver after the last crash. If the rates are still super low and there's another crash, where do they go from there?

Also, I think inflation is happening but it's all been in the markets. Billions of dollars created and given to corporations that buy back a crap ton of their stocks. What happens if there's a huge sell-off and that money is suddenly pumped into circulation?

Seriously, how much money is that and what would it do?

Vince wrote: Not sure how many arrows were left in the quiver after the last crash. If the rates are still super low and there's another crash, where do they go from there?

QE4, baby!

Vince wrote: Billions of dollars created and given to corporations that buy back a crap ton of their stocks. What happens if there's a huge sell-off and that money is suddenly pumped into circulation?

When shares are repurchased, they no longer exist, so the # of outstanding shares falls. They cannot be sold off. Which is why most shareholders like buybacks. It raises EPS and other valuation metrics due to the reduced # of shares.

Companies cannot be their own shareholders (conflict of interest, since the company is run by managers on behalf of shareholders)

TheCatt wrote: When shares are repurchased, they no longer exist, so the # of outstanding shares falls. They cannot be sold off. Which is why most shareholders like buybacks. It raises EPS and other valuation metrics due to the reduced # of shares.

Companies cannot be their own shareholders (conflict of interest, since the company is run by managers on behalf of shareholders)

Okay, I see what you're saying. But isn't the buyback inflating the still existing stocks? In other words, isn't that still a round about way for the QE money to end up back in circulation rather than tied up in the market (through artificially inflated stocks due to a buyback)? If there's a sell-off, I mean.

Vince wrote: But isn't the buyback inflating the still existing stocks? In other words, isn't that still a round about way for the QE money to end up back in circulation rather than tied up in the market (through artificially inflated stocks due to a buyback)? If there's a sell-off, I mean.

Well, it's complicated. Buybacks are inflating stocks, but fundamentally, stocks are priced based on their valuations and alternative investments. In a simple world, if a stock pays you $10 / year, and you can get 5% interest from the government(let's assume that's a riskless 5% from the government), then the stock is worth $10 / (0.05 + risk premium of the stock). If you believe the company is as good of a bet as the government, then that premium is 0.0, and the stock is worth $200 to you. (Assuming a world without taxes as well).

So the biggest theoretical impact of QE is that it's lowering the government interest rate, by artificially raising demand (or reducing supply, depending on your perspective) of government bonds raising bond prices, lowering their yields. While the fed control short term rates, long term rates are generally market-based, although distorted by QE. Thus, since rates are low, alternative investments to bonds (such as stocks) become more valuable, and their prices go up.

A buyback is essentially the company's managers saying "We have nothing better to do with this $$$ than give it back to shareholders." This implies they have no investment options of their own (CapEx, projects, etc) that will return them % above their 'hurdle' rate. (Hurdle rate will vary by company, and managers, etc) There's an argument that low interest rates also promote bad investment by companies as hurdle rates may be a factor of interest rates. (Cheap capital/debt/bonds, for instance, means that low return projects become profitable)