Edward

I agree will all of that. Problem is, Renault-Nissan are doing exactly the same and will enjoy similar benefits. I also think it's sobering to read how close Tesla came to bankruptcy in 2008-2009. This is not an easy business to be in. Don't get me wrong - Tesla will own the premium space and kill the competition. But mass market cars? Another game altogether.

You don't necessarily need to sell that many. Nissan is already selling the LEAF for a pretty low price, and I'd expect that they will cut prices further over time now that they are ramping up their TN factory. I think Tesla can do much better than them in a few years (in good part because they're much leaner and smarter, and also thanks to the natural drop in price of components over time). The reason Nissan can afford to sell the LEAF for around 30K$ is because they expect to sell 500K+ cars a year on the LEAF platform globally at some point. So they can capitalise the fixed costs on a lot of cars. Tesla can't reach such a volume. I don't really buy the lean and smart argument. Yes they are, but it can only take you so far. It could mean, say, 500$ per car in cost advantage, but certainly can't make up for the volume difference which can be a 5,000$ gap per car in some cases. Component cost is lower for mass market manufacturers because they have scale advantage in procurement. Tesla is not big enough to get volume discounts.

Just rephrasing - In order to make a sub-40K$ EV (including battery), you need to count on mass market volumes (500K+ units per platform) to drive cost down. This space also has really nasty competition - Renault-Nissan and GM, so going that way is very risky. Hence I believe they will stay in premium for the foreseeable future.

Where did you get that Model X was supposed to be sub 40k? The Model X is built on the Model S platform and should have similar pricing. It's the next platform - still under development - that should be less expensive and built in higher volumes. Sorry, you're correct - I meant the next platform in development. Thanks.

Regarding the model X - I will be very surprised if it turns out to cost sub 40K$ on the road. Also being low volume, Tesla has a built in scale disadvantage vs mass market auto makers so they can only really compete in the premium space. I think that Renault-Nissan and possibly GM will lead the mass market EV space and Tesla has no business trying to enter that segment.

A/C, Breaks, and Tires are about the same. Well, almost since you don't actually use the breaks as much due to motor regen. Otherwise maintenance is near Nil. Generally there is no need to ever tinker with the motor, power electronics, or battery. There is no oil or other fluids. So minimal maintenance which can be confirmed by the owners of the last generation of RAV4 EVs sold 10 years ago. The wild card here is the battery. It shouldn't fail completely, but will slowly decay in capacity every year, so after say 10 years you can only go 70% of the original distance on a charge. The decay is faster in the first few years then levels off, so say 80% of original capacity after 5 years and 70% after 10 years. However, this too is not entirely accurate - the decay is affected by a lot of factors - to name a few: 1. Extreme ambient temperatures - this is helped by the TMS in the vehicle. 2. Deep cycling of the battery (charging from close to 0% a lot). 3. Keeping the battery near 100% a lot of the time. 4. Frequent fast charging. So to sum - other than tires and wipers, generally close to zero maintenance required. Battery might be a problem at some point though, hard to predict at what point if at all. Of course 10+ year old vehicles are not worth much anyway, so probably not a big problem.

Actually there is no premium. This car may be 10-20K$ more expensive than the comparable BMW, but you are paying 5-10 times less for fuel (electricity vs gasoline). So do the math :)

I'd say that to save time, read the wiki on him then read all his letters to shareholders, ever. Then sit down and start reading financial statements of companies you are interested investing in. You'll understand him better if you're fluent in reading financial reports. Of course there are various biographies of the man, but I'm not sure they provide huge added value. Can't hurt if you have the time.

Read a lot. Understand the mentality and consider it's very different from Europe/The US. Investing in Russia is a lot like investing in China. A lot of scams, bad/opaque accounting, government involvement, corruption, and every time the regime changes there's a real risk. In such an environment, big fortunes are made and lost. To invest in such an environment, one needs to know absolutely everything possible about a company and have balls of steel. Good luck to you sir!

Greece didn't properly restructure yet. So no. Iceland on the other hand.... Basically you need a serious dent restructuring (like in the US to some extent) or a default/devaluation (Iceland). Delaying matters like in Japan or Europe won't cut it. Yes, the Nikkei looks cheap. But it will probably be a lot cheaper in real terms at some point in the not too distant future.

For some exposition, you might watch Kyle Bass's thesis on the matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JUc8-GUC1hY Considering the way similar situations have played out in history: A bet on the Japanese stock market may only work well if they inflate gently out of their huge debt load, and even then it's hard to be sure. Actually, it is a lot more likely that the "usual" debt crisis scenario will play out - a massive spike in bond yields, government subsequently can't pay interest, devalues/inflates massively. All paper assets drop like a stone in real terms, including stocks. THEN, and only then, it is time to buy. Sure, buying now and holding for 5-10 years will still turn out OK, because after that 90% drop in real terms it will come back up to fair value over time. I'm just saying - the big profits are made when there's blood on the street, which is definitely not now.

I believe France Telecom is the cheapest EU telecom by far with the least debt load (around 2 Net debt/EBITDA) and the longest fixed rate debt maturities (9 years). They usually generate EUR 8-9B in EBITDA-CAPEX per year, pay 1.5B in interest, and 1B in cash taxes, leaving around 5.5-6.5 FCF per year. Market cap is EUR 20B, so the FCF yield is somewhere around 30% at current share price.

24.8% increase in NAV after fees for the fund. Year end positions were: Investment % of Assets Cash 19.3 NRG Energy 7.3 France Telecom 10.5 Renault 13.7 Enterprise Inns 10.6 Finsbury Food Group 11.8 Fortress Paper 10.3 American International Group 9.0 Bank of America warrant A 10.4 Co. Bank of Australia P25D2013 0.0 Fortescue Metals Group (3.0) Much thanks to the board for the FTP idea, would have never come up with that myself. Also to Bruce Berkowitz and the board for BAC and AIG.