Tesla/Lithium stocks discussion

lucky john · 03-04-2017 10:49pm

Francie Barrett wrote: »

He must be pretty vindictive to troll the shorters.

I imagine a lot of the buying in the second half of trading today was from
desperate shorters trying to cover positions. over 20% of shares were on short loan so there was some serious burning done today. Can't all be covered yet. Probably a few brave guys hoping for profit taking tomorrow to drop the price a bit.

There are still a lot of investors out there that have not realized yet that Tesla CAN NOT be valued as a normal company. Musk is a cult. Tesla is a cult. For some time yet this company (and share price) will defy gravity. As I have said before, bet against it at your pearl.

Prezatch · 04-04-2017 3:24pm

Now more valuable than Ford..

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-now-more-valuable-ford-202120995.html

Francie Barrett · 04-04-2017 9:29pm

Prezatch wrote: »

Now more valuable than Ford..

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-now-more-valuable-ford-202120995.html

and now more valuable than GM.

BMW next.

el diablo · 05-04-2017 4:34am

Prezatch wrote: »

Now more valuable than Ford..

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-now-more-valuable-ford-202120995.html

Totally ridiculous. Ford sold 2.6 million cars last year. Meanwhile Tesla sold just 76,000 cars. Ford had earnings of $4.6 billion. Tesla lost $700 million.

These Musk/Tesla/Space X fanboys make me laugh. :pac:

lucky john · 05-04-2017 2:18pm

el diablo wrote: »

Totally ridiculous. Ford sold 2.6 million cars last year. Meanwhile Tesla sold just 76,000 cars. Ford had earnings of $4.6 billion. Tesla lost $700 million.

These Musk/Tesla/Space X fanboys make me laugh. :pac:

Ford...Q1/17 car sales -7%
Tesla Q1/17 car sales +70%

1 year share price ford -10.6%
Tsla +20.9%

Makes me laugh too..all the way to the bank :pac:

Sabre Man · 05-04-2017 4:42pm

Why $300 Might Actually Make Sense
http://blogs.barrons.com/stockstowatchtoday/2017/04/05/tesla-why-300-might-actually-make-sense/?mod=yahoobarrons&ru=yahoo&yptr=yahoo

zpehtsfd · 05-04-2017 7:19pm

lucky john wrote: »

Ford...Q1/17 car sales -7%
Tesla Q1/17 car sales +70%

1 year share price ford -10.6%
Tsla +20.9%

Makes me laugh too..all the way to the bank :pac:

So you're actually trying to justify a M/C > Ford (with a P/E of 9) and GM (with a P/E of 6)? That's just ridiculous. imo

Your making bank has less to do with fundamentals and more to do with the fact that the US is currently in a massive bull market (driven by cheap $$ and buybacks) and shorts are being forced to cover due to the high borrow rate on the stock. It's happening to lots of other stocks. This is a market anomaly and similar to the credit crisis of 2008 except in that case everything crashed to ridiculous levels. Gloat all you want but eventually the market will revert to the mean and high flyers like Tesla will be valued based on reasonable metrics.

Here's an unbiased article that goes into great detail about the valuation of Tesla:

http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.ie/2016/07/tesla-story-meets-numbers-promise-meets.html

Francie Barrett · 06-04-2017 10:58am

zpehtsfd wrote: »

Here's an unbiased article that goes into great detail about the valuation of Tesla:

http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.ie/2016/07/tesla-story-meets-numbers-promise-meets.html

That guy loves his models and DCF's. I mean, it's fair enough, he's making a stab at trying to value Tesla, but I think he is trying to do so off totally incomplete information. By using complete guesses at margins, revenue growth and capital requirements and extrapolating into the future, he only needs very small changes in an early assumption to wreck the model. You can see that his early estimates were broken after 1 year. If the model fails so hopelessly at such an early point, there is no hope at estimating what the future will look like in 10 years.

By the way, he's the same guy who also has a stake in Valeant, a company that has went down massively since he originally went long - http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/a-valeant-update-damaged-goods-or.html

zpehtsfd · 06-04-2017 1:13pm

Francie Barrett wrote: »

That guy loves his models and DCF's. I mean, it's fair enough, he's making a stab at trying to value Tesla, but I think he is trying to do so off totally incomplete information. By using complete guesses at margins, revenue growth and capital requirements and extrapolating into the future, he only needs very small changes in an early assumption to wreck the model. You can see that his early estimates were broken after 1 year. If the model fails so hopelessly at such an early point, there is no hope at estimating what the future will look like in 10 years.

By the way, he's the same guy who also has a stake in Valeant, a company that has went down massively since he originally went long - http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/a-valeant-update-damaged-goods-or.html

Of course it's all guesstimates at this stage. No one knows what lies ahead for Tesla but you have to start somewhere. Given the amount of variables that are involved all future valuation models should be taken with a grain of salt. The reason i thought the article was interesting was because it was unbiased and the metrics he was using were somewhat realistic as opposed to the hyperbolic nonsense like here: http://fortune.com/2016/06/08/tesla-ron-baron/

I'm not sure what him having a stake in Valeant has to do with anything as he doesn't have a stake in Tesla. If you're questioning his credibility then that's your prerogative. I've yet to find anyone with a flawless track record in investing. GL

Francie Barrett · 06-04-2017 1:46pm

zpehtsfd wrote: »

Of course it's all guesstimates at this stage. No one knows what lies ahead for Tesla but you have to start somewhere. Given the amount of variables that are involved all future valuation models should be taken with a grain of salt. The reason i thought the article was interesting was because it was unbiased and the metrics he was using were somewhat realistic as opposed to the hyperbolic nonsense like here: http://fortune.com/2016/06/08/tesla-ron-baron/

I'm not sure what him having a stake in Valeant has to do with anything as he doesn't have a stake in Tesla. If you're questioning his credibility then that's your prerogative. I've yet to find anyone with a flawless track record in investing. GL

I am not having a pop at you man. I just think that DCF's and models only work for stable predictable businesses that change very little or not at all. Trying to predict what Tesla will look like in 10 years is a fools errand.

With that said, I am still very bearish on Tesla and still hold OOM puts on it. The latest nonsense that bulls are trying to spin on this is that it's not an auto company anymore, it's a tech company. I even see folks trying to compare it to the likes of Amazon. I know people always had a pop at Amazon because like Tesla, they had pretty poor GAAP earnings in comparison to their valuation for a long time. With that said, they were completely different. For a start, Amazon didn't have to continuously go to the market to raise new money. Other than share dilution due to management options, they raised capital only once at IPO. Secondly, the rubbish Amazon GAAP earnings hid the underlying earnings power of the business. If you look at the figures of Amazon since IPO, operating cash flow has just exploded every single year, with earnings being reinvested back into the business. Self-funding organic growth has let Amazon grow into their valuation for 20 years now.

The situation at Tesla is completely different. For them to grow, new capital needs to be raised because no cash flows is generated within the business. Sure, revenue is growing, shipments are growing, but ultimately the bottom line shows heavy red ink. You look at the last 10 years of Tesla financials, they have sharply negative operating cash flow for all but 1 of those years. At what point does this thing stand on its own two feet and generate an investor return?

lucky john · 06-04-2017 1:58pm

zpehtsfd wrote: »

Here's an unbiased article that goes into great detail about the valuation of Tesla:

http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.ie/2016/07/tesla-story-meets-numbers-promise-meets.html

Its an interesting look at Tesla and shows how hard it is even for a smart guy to value this company. It clear from his attempts that he has failed at least twice and looks likely that his July '16 go at it is wrong as well. The speed of change in the company is what's catching him. Its that full throttle race to growth that makes Tesla stand out. They are no where near their full potential yet so comparing them to a flat lining company like Ford is pointless. Tesla is a Tec company first, an energy company second and an auto company third. the car is no more than a stylish box to sell their tec and energy in. It would be far more realistic to compare Tesla with Apple.
If you were to go back to Apple pre iphone I am sure there would be guys on here laughing at Apples Valuation and comparing it to Nokia or RIM. I'm wouldn't dare suggest that the same fate that befell either of those companies
will befall Ford or GM but back then Apple were first to realize that the least useful use of a phone was to make phone calls.

Of course a market flop could pull the rug from under Tesla as it would most other companies. Of course Tesla will hit a peak at some stage and the anti Musk/tesla/spacex guys can have their I told you so days in the sun. Until then I will happy watch and admire Tesla.

Sabre Man · 06-04-2017 2:51pm

They have addressed the cash flow situation by extending their payment deadlines to suppliers to 60 days for Model 3 parts. That means they will get money for sold cars before they have to pay the suppliers.

Customers will be able to order the new solar roofs soon. It will be interesting to see what the prices are and if they will be popular.

zpehtsfd · 06-04-2017 7:23pm

Sabre Man wrote: »

They have addressed the cash flow situation by extending their payment deadlines to suppliers to 60 days for Model 3 parts. That means they will get money for sold cars before they have to pay the suppliers.

Ah yes how could we forget when they had their first positive operating Cash Flow in years thanks to some nice maneuvering by management. Perfectly timed to lead into the SolarCity deal vote. That deal was a sham but the large shareholders could not afford to say no due to Musk's connection to it. Musk had them over a barrel.

Also i remember Musk saying that because suppliers were (paraphrasing) "so eager to be part of the Model 3 that they were more then happy to extend the payment deadlines". :pac::pac::pac::pac:

Sabre Man · 13-04-2017 8:35pm

Tesla Semi-truck due to arrive in September, “Seriously next level”
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-semi-truck-due-arrive-september-seriously-next-level/

Some seroiusly fast competition from Lucid here. Unlike Faraday Future, Lucid's far more affordable cars could pose a threat to Model S sales as well as sales of other fast cars.
https://www.teslarati.com/lucid-motors-air-217-mph-high-speed-stability-test/

Thargor · 13-04-2017 10:11pm

400 mile range in the Lucid? That has to be exaggerated.

cros13 · 23-04-2017 8:01pm

Thargor wrote: »

400 mile (643.74 km) range in the Lucid? That has to be exaggerated.

No, 130 kWh pack (on the top spec) and slightly higher efficiency than a Model S (the air is a smaller car with slightly better aero).

In real world numbers, a model S requires between 73.4kWh (at the speed limit, 22C Ambient Temp, 100kg payload) and 92.6kWh (10% above the speed limit, 500kg payload, 0C Ambient Temp, Cabin Temp 22C) to do Belfast to Cork. Based on the battery capacity and allowing for 5-10% bump in efficiency a 130kWh Lucid air would potentially be able to do Belfast to Cork and back to Dublin in one sitting. That's 688km.

Obviously it would depend on allowed depth of discharge etc. But Lucid's quoted numbers are their targets under the EPA testing cycle which most Irish EV drivers tend to beat.
A Tesla Model S 100D (100kWh) has a NEDC-rated range of 632km but an EPA rating of 540km. So, for a 130kWh pack an EPA cycle range of 644km would be conservative to say the least.

Lucid are supposed to be looking at a $700m capital raise to build their factory. Given the people involved, the market they're targeting and their comparatively realistic plan to market (vs Faraday Future or the other dreamers), I'd say they're worth a punt.

Tesla is overvalued by all normal measures, but there are massive potential upsides. Don't underestimate the value of that battery plant, with the possible exceptions of Daimler and maybe Nissan every other carmaker is going to be severely limited by the availability of batteries for at least the next 6-10 years. And any excess production can be effectively dumped at a few percent above cost on the Utility-scale storage market (that market is big enough to absorb 100X the gigafactories production with price per kWh being the only limiting factor).
I got my Tesla shares from privately held stock before IPO so... I figure why not let it ride...

b4bmm · 23-04-2017 8:56pm

Ya battery range anxiety with higher spec EV isn't an issue.
Even with a drive from say Belfast to Cork you have to stop along the way at least once
and its simply a case of working it in so that you can get a boost for 30-60 mins while you have lunch.

New Audi out soon and many more will follow, there will be a tsunami of EV's by 2020/21 and if your not taking it into account now when building a house your not being very forward thinking,

“Our Audi e-tron will be starting out in 2018 – the first electric car in its competitive field that is fit for everyday use. With a range of over 500 kilometers (310.7 miles) and the special electric driving experience, we will make this sporty SUV the must-have product of the next decade. Following close on its heels, in 2019, comes the production version of the Audi e-tron Sportback – an emotional coupé version that is thrillingly identifiable as an electric car at the very first glance.”

https://electrek.co/2017/04/18/audi-e-tron-sportback-electric-2019/#more-42098

cros13 · 23-04-2017 11:22pm

The big problem is going to be battery manufacturing. Raw material supply isn't a big deal, plenty of lithium out there and most are working with low or no cobalt chemistries for next gen cells.

Between LG Chem and Samsung SDI the manufacturing capacity under construction in europe right now (which will be supplying pretty much all the european marques with the exception of Daimler) will only be enough to supply 150-250 thousand EVs annually out of 13-14 million cars sold (depending on pack capacity).

Most of the battery suppliers won't build out capacity without guaranteed orders, and you can't blame them because the carmakers asked them to build capacity for 2008-2012 that never arrived and several companies went to the wall as a result.

Volkswagen finally woke up to that reality in the new year and allocated funds to building a plant after they were unable to negotiate supply agreements for the volumes they'll need to make a mass-market play.

Tesla faces an issue selling their excess production into this market as most planned cars are being built with prismatic cells (because the pack & cooling design is simpler) and Tesla/Panasonic will only be set up to build cylindrical cells.

Even with the market right now there are cell supply issues. Hyundai is sold out of the Ioniq BEV in Ireland and the UK until October (apart from the odd inventory/demo car). Partially that's because of reserved production for the US, and partially because LG Chem can't supply enough cells. GM has the same issue with the Bolt/Ampera-e, production is slow because LG Chem can't supply enough cells. GM sold out the entire 2017 allocation of the Bolt in South Korea in two hours with only 400 cars available to fill the 2000 orders that were placed that day.

b4bmm · 24-04-2017 12:03am

cros13 wrote: »

The big problem is going to be battery manufacturing. Raw material supply isn't a big deal, plenty of lithium out there and most are working with low or no cobalt chemistries for next gen cells.

Between LG Chem and Samsung SDI the manufacturing capacity under construction in europe right now (which will be supplying pretty much all the european marques with the exception of Daimler) will only be enough to supply 150-250 thousand EVs annually out of 13-14 million cars sold (depending on pack capacity).

Most of the battery suppliers won't build out capacity without guaranteed orders, and you can't blame them because the carmakers asked them to build capacity for 2008-2012 that never arrived and several companies went to the wall as a result.

Volkswagen finally woke up to that reality in the new year and allocated funds to building a plant after they were unable to negotiate supply agreements for the volumes they'll need to make a mass-market play.

Tesla faces an issue selling their excess production into this market as most planned cars are being built with prismatic cells (because the pack & cooling design is simpler) and Tesla/Panasonic will only be set up to build cylindrical cells.

Even with the market right now there are cell supply issues. Hyundai is sold out of the Ioniq BEV in Ireland and the UK until October (apart from the odd inventory/demo car). Partially that's because of reserved production for the US, and partially because LG Chem can't supply enough cells. GM has the same issue with the Bolt/Ampera-e, production is slow because LG Chem can't supply enough cells. GM sold out the entire 2017 allocation of the Bolt in South Korea in two hours with only 400 cars available to fill the 2000 orders that were placed that day.

The whole supply chain is lagging behind right now. I don't agree it's just manufacturing it's most definitely the raw material side too. Raw material constitutes the majority of costs of cell production. Far and away ahead of all other costs.

Lithium production is nowhere near where it should be because cell manufacturers are too slow at signing offtake agreements which will enable projects to get finance and begin construction. More production will mean more competition in the market and cheaper prices for all.

There is a big disconnect right now between the different aspects in the supply chain IMO. Nobody want to make the first move. The banks won't finance the mining operations because the mining operations don't have future sales supplies locked in to demonstrate viable operations because the cell manufacturers are being given mixed signals by many auto makers/stationary storage makers who won't pull their finger out all the while China is making them all look like mugs with massively increasing EV/buses sales and associated infrastructure. China is the only real market right now and the Model 3 must come good for the rest of the world to wake TF up.

Big oil is also trying its best to block progress lobbying politicians etc for as long as the can -Trump/Tillerson EPA disbanding is a farce along with huge fossil fuel subsidies that renewable subsidies don't come close to.

Your also wrong about cobalt going forward this link shows cobalt is a big part of the most in demand lithium Ion batteries going forward NMC type- Nickel manganese cobalt configuration.

Of all lithium-ion chemistries, NMC/Graphite is forecasted to experience the most growth between 2015 and 2025 at a CAGR of over 15%;

https://investorintel.com/sectors/technology-metals/technology-metals-intel/graphite-pro-reviews-recent-battery-event-conflict-mineral-challenge/

Silicon integration into LI-ion batteries gradually will see the next big breakthroughs in performance IMO. I think in their most recent batteries Tesla are already starting with silicon in the 2120 (?) cells

There will eventually be a point when things will go mental in the whole EV/battery space. The price point of the batteries and savings for consumers will be undeniable, IMO we are already there it's just people's misconceptions that are what's out of sync, but there needs to be more choice of models in the market before that will happen. By 2020 there will be a huge push on and 2023-25 there will be no looking back.

cros13 · 24-04-2017 1:14am

b4bmm wrote: »

Raw material constitutes the majority of costs of cell production. Far and away ahead of all other costs.

Agreed. But there is more flexibility than people sometimes think. Especially evident with Tesla Panasonic already being at or below $170/kWh

b4bmm wrote: »

Lithium production is nowhere near where it should be because cell manufacturers are too slow at signing offtake agreements which will enable projects to get finance and begin construction. More production will mean more competition in the market and cheaper prices for all.

The battery manufacturers don't have the capital and their parent companies have generally balked at allowing them the headroom. Unless their customer (the automaker) fronts them the money they are unwilling/unable to do it.

Compared to many other materials in the cells Lithium production can be ramped up fairly quickly. The only question is what price makes what Lithium deposits exploitable.

b4bmm wrote: »

There is a big disconnect right now between the different aspects in the supply chain IMO. Nobody want to make the first move.

Agreed, but when Tesla and Panasonic went looking for raw material supply for the gigafactory they didn't have a lot of trouble getting suppliers.

b4bmm wrote: »

Big oil is also trying its best to block progress lobbying politicians etc for as long as the can -McSnuffles/Tillerson EPA disbanding is a farce along with huge fossil fuel subsidies that renewable subsidies don't come close to.

Sure, but economic gravity can be a b**ch. Solar PV and EVs are both coming of age and they can only hold off talk of stranded assets for so long. There are enough fund managers driving Teslas already that the cat's probably not going back in the bag.

b4bmm wrote: »

Your also wrong about cobalt going forward this link shows cobalt is a big part of the most in demand lithium Ion batteries going forward NMC type- Nickel manganese cobalt configuration.

Of all lithium-ion chemistries, NMC/Graphite is forecasted to experience the most growth between 2015 and 2025 at a CAGR of over 15%;

There are low-cobalt NMC chemistries (despite the name). Tesla's 2170 cells are rumored to be based on a low-cobalt chemistry (I've heard the same rumors about silicon but that's a lot less credible than low-cobalt (there have been a number of instances where Tesla people stopped talking or seemed to be told to stop talking when low-cobalt chemistries came up during earnings calls, Q&A at conferences and the like, and silicon anode is a higher bar / would be a bigger breakthrough / would carry more risk)). There is a point where if demand gets too great and cobalt prices rise too far large portions of the EV and storage market can be offloaded to LMO and LiFe or other chemistries.

b4bmm wrote: »

There will eventually be a point when things will go mental in the whole EV/battery space. The price point of the batteries and savings for consumers will be undeniable, IMO we are already there it's just people's misconceptions that are what's out of sync, but there needs to be more choice of models in the market before that will happen. By 2020 there will be a huge push on and 2023-25 there will be no looking back.

Agreed. The minute the penny drops with Joe Public the available batteries are probably going to have to be rationed to the high-margin products. I don't think valuable low weight NCA/NMC batteries are going to be wasted on grid storage for a few years after that point.

The traditional car manufacturers should be following Tesla's lead and moving the top of their product range now to make a bit of money, limit demand and make the EV powertrain choice aspirational for their customers. Instead they're chasing after a mass market that doesn't quite exist yet with razor thin margins (if any), longer supply lines than the berlin airlift, unproven products from suppliers that have never built for EVs before and a retail network that's actively hostile to the product.

Prezatch · 02-05-2017 4:10pm

Electric cars are coming fast -- and that’s not just the opinion of carmakers anymore. Total SA, one of the world’s biggest oil producers, is now saying EVs may constitute almost a third of new-car sales by the end of the next decade.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-25/electric-car-boom-seen-triggering-peak-oil-demand-in-2030s

Better get investing in lithium/cobalt lads!

b4bmm · 06-05-2017 12:32am

Peak oil in the next 5 years if this prediction is right. Makes a lot of sense.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/no-one-will-own-a-car-in-the-future-2017-5?r=US&IR=T

Sabre Man · 11-05-2017 9:49am

Tesla solar roof prices come in cheaper than some had expected
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/10/tesla-solar-roof-prices-come-in-cheaper-than-some-had-expected.html

Still rather expensive and dependent on subsidies, at least in some (most?) markets.

Nody · 11-05-2017 1:28pm

Sabre Man wrote: »

Tesla solar roof prices come in cheaper than some had expected
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/10/tesla-solar-roof-prices-come-in-cheaper-than-some-had-expected.html

Still rather expensive and dependent on subsidies, at least in some (most?) markets.

The quotes I've seen puts them at about 7x the price of a normal roof and about 2x price of normal roof + normal sun panels...

b4bmm · 11-05-2017 9:34pm

I could be wrong but don't they claim high efficiency with these panels, have you taken that into account?

Also the fact the warranty is 25 years, which would be the case for a normal roof?

I need to look into it more myself, interested to see how competitive it is compared to other options.

Sabre Man · 15-05-2017 2:56pm

Tesla downgraded by major bull:
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/major-tesla-bull-just-downgraded-134651295.html

I think he's wrong on the expected sales figures.

cros13 · 15-05-2017 8:29pm

Nody wrote: »

The quotes I've seen puts them at about 7x the price of a normal roof and about 2x price of normal roof + normal sun panels...

Bloomberg et. al have been quoting the wrong figures.
In the US Tesla is charging about 20-30% more than a slate roof + panels.

Part of what's throwing out the figures is the press is often using asphalt tile roofs as the comparison which is the "normal" roofing material used in the US.
The slate roofs common in Ireland have about 4-5 times the lifespan and are a much more upmarket option in the US.
Musk idea is to both grab new builds that were going to be using premium roofs like slate anyway or catch the homeowners at the 20-25 year replacement for the asphalt tile roof.

A slate roof in the US is about $160-200 sq meter. Tesla is quoting $220-$250 sq meter for a roof with solar PV in 35% of the tiles.
It's certainly not outlandish, and works out very well once solar tax incentives and subsidies are factored in.

b4bmm · 15-05-2017 10:23pm

Is it something worth considering in Ireland/Uk given the unpredictable level of sunshine and cost?

Nody · 16-05-2017 5:27pm

cros13 wrote: »

Bloomberg et. al have been quoting the wrong figures.
In the US Tesla is charging about 20-30% more than a slate roof + panels.

Part of what's throwing out the figures is the press is often using asphalt tile roofs as the comparison which is the "normal" roofing material used in the US.
The slate roofs common in Ireland have about 4-5 times the lifespan and are a much more upmarket option in the US.
Musk idea is to both grab new builds that were going to be using premium roofs like slate anyway or catch the homeowners at the 20-25 year replacement for the asphalt tile roof.

A slate roof in the US is about $160-200 sq meter. Tesla is quoting $220-$250 sq meter for a roof with solar PV in 35% of the tiles.
It's certainly not outlandish, and works out very well once solar tax incentives and subsidies are factored in.

Sorry but I got no idea where you get your comparison prices but as confirmed by multiple people in the USA the cost of a 50 year tile roof is around $8 per square foot or $86 per square meter those are actual bought in the last year. The difference will easily buy you sun panels on top of them at a cheaper price AND save you money (if sun panels even make sense in the first place). This example taken from here and that's assuming you need (or want) to redo your whole roof in the first place.

b4bmm · 16-05-2017 9:39pm

I guess it depends on the quality and rating of the sun panels, as you call them, as opposed to the Tesla ones which give quite a long guarantee. Btw just because a company offers a guarantee in the solar industry doesn't mean much unless it's from a highly reputable company. It's a fast moving industry and a lot of companies are falling by the wayside due to a number of factors, mainly not being able to compete. There is a host of issues to consider not just straight up prices.

Tesla/Lithium stocks discussion

Comments