ERICOPOLY

Well, perhaps when I need to replace my Tesla battery pack in 10 years I can keep the old one for scheme of charging it between midnight and 6 am at 9 cents per kWh, and then running the house on it the rest of the day. Yes, you can fully charge the tesla 85 kWh battery in 5 hours using their High Powered Wall Charger which is capable of charging at 80 AMPS.

Well, a lot of the time there will be an 85 kWh battery pack parked in my garage. I wish Tesla had designed it for this potential use. I could run my home on it for a couple of days on one charge! And recharging it for only 9 cents per kWh. Instead of getting hosed at 47 cents per kWh during the hours of 10am and 6pm. That would help defray it's cost over time.

Have you looked at SolarCity? Of course, it's probably better for you to buy the system outright since you have the capital... But maybe they offer something that could interest you. I'm also wondering if I can get a battery backup system for the house... and then charge it between 12am and 6am for the rate of 9 cents per kWh. Then during the day I can draw that electricity back out of the battery during the hours (10am and 6pm) when I'm getting charged 47 cents per kWh. That's a 5 bagger every day! Solar City sells residential batteries made by Tesla.

I don't want to buy the put. I want to write it.

My local utility has a special rate plan for electric vehicle owners. 9 cents per kWh between 12 am and 6 am, and a whopping 47 cents between 10 am and 6pm. Costco sells a 5,000 watt solar system with racking and inverter for $13,000. Now if you assume the Federal tax credit will cover installation. Then the repayment period on the system will be less than 2 years. Beyond that, tax free gravy. So I'm scheduling the pool pump to start at midnight. Hilarious! Forgot to mention -- we don't need air conditioning this close to the ocean.

That's silly. They don't have higher taxes for fuel efficient cars. They should be encouraging Hummers and big V8 muscle cars in order to boost highway tax revenue.

Nice! Those black ones look great but I'm too lazy to keep them looking clean.

People tend to overestimate the range that they need. Unless you are one of those rare people who constantly drive very far without stopping much, 300 miles is already more than it might seem if you compare directly to a gas-car; by that I mean that electric cars are usually fully charged when you leave the house in the morning, so you always have a "full tank", while gas cars are only charged every X number of days, so you leave the house on many days with probably a lot less than 300 miles of potential range yet that's not a problem. The extra range only becomes necessary for a road trip. Given the fast swap of batteries in the Model S, then perhaps you only need to have the bigger battery in your car when you are planning a long drive. But the extra acceleration would be mindboggling. The extra acceleration comes from a bigger battery (that's why mine goes to 60 in 4.2 seconds). So when a 400 mile batter, or 500 mile, or 700 mile... etc... when those batteries are available they only need to let us "rent" them at a Tesla battery swap station. The swap takes only a couple of minutes (it's done robotically). So you have those available at the supercharger stations. And check out the full list of stations planned for 2015. It's impressive: http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger Move the slider control to 2015 on that linked page.

What color did you pick Eric? And the interior? Very nice car! Cheers! It is silver metallic paint with tan interior. All Glass panoramic roof. I chose the fastest one (performance edition) and added the "performance plus" package. As for the rest of the options, I checked all of the boxes ;D Nice! So on the top of the line "performance plus" package, how many miles will you get before charging? About 275-300 miles? Cheers! It won't be 300 miles. That's for 55 miles per hour ;) They have an app for estimating mileage with different speeds and road conditions: http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric#range Just scroll down on that linked page until you see the white car with the turning wheels. You can adjust the settings and it will simulate the range. 245 mile range on the highway at 65 MPH 352 mile range on the highway at 45 MPH 292 mile range in the city If they could get that to 400 miles at 65MPH, that would be something. I think you would start to see a lot of luxury car owners switching to a Tesla, because price-wise it is already competitive with high-end Mercedes and BMW's. Enjoy your ride! Your license plate should say "FFH BAC"! Cheers! I wonder if it were LFYAH anyone would get the reference?

What color did you pick Eric? And the interior? Very nice car! Cheers! It is silver metallic paint with tan interior. All Glass panoramic roof. I chose the fastest one (performance edition) and added the "performance plus" package. As for the rest of the options, I checked all of the boxes ;D Nice! So on the top of the line "performance plus" package, how many miles will you get before charging? About 275-300 miles? Cheers! It won't be 300 miles. That's for 55 miles per hour ;) They have an app for estimating mileage with different speeds and road conditions: http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric#range Just scroll down on that linked page until you see the white car with the turning wheels. You can adjust the settings and it will simulate the range. 245 mile range on the highway at 65 MPH 352 mile range on the highway at 45 MPH 292 mile range in the city

Yes, I was taking issue with the meaning of the word "subsidy". As in, somehow everyone else is subsidizing me. I already own 3 vehicles. This is purely a luxury toy. If I buy this car, American's get more jobs. Tax receipts go up because my sales tax exceeded the subsidy. If I don't buy this car, fewer jobs for Americans and less tax revenue. Where is the subsidy? Normally, given that I have paid more absolute tax dollars the past few years than the typical American, I must be subsidizing them. Only they don't call that a subsidy :-X

Thanks for the helpful comments!

What color did you pick Eric? And the interior? Very nice car! Cheers! It is silver metallic paint with tan interior. All Glass panoramic roof. I chose the fastest one (performance edition) and added the "performance plus" package. As for the rest of the options, I checked all of the boxes ;D

Signing paperwork today and about to pay the money for my Model S. But that's not why I'm posting this... The California sales tax exceeds my tax credits. So there is no subsidy, don't worry fellow taxpayers. Sigh... Recently they brought online new Supercharger stations in Buellton and Atascadero. So now I can pick up the car at the Fremont factory, get a tour, and easily drive it home without worrying about public charging stations.

Does the investor's visa really grant citizenship, or just residency?

I don't suppose it would be popular to try the tactics that the Comanches used to push the Spanish out.

Thanks for the color regarding the treatment of retail investors. What is the cheapest/easiest route to mature into an "institutional" client versus a "retail" client? What kind of a legal entity will they do such business with? Were I to set up an investment partnership, LLC similar to what Sanjeev runs, would that suffice? Even if I'm the only investor in the fund? I'd rather pay the lawyers and accountants than the tax collectors.

I use IB. Given that I have no experience ever talking with the professionals, I have no idea how this is done. But given the trillions in derivatives out there, I feel like the patsy paying the tax and want to get with the program.

Alright... I know next to nothing about this but I have a hopeful imagination. Which door do I knock on to find a counterparty willing to purchase from me a long term deep-in-the-money put contract. For example, if I can write a 5 year put option on WFC with something like a $200 strike, the value of that put would carry a premium that compensates me for a reasonable approximation of the dividends that WFC will pay over the next 5 years. When assigned after 5 years, I get the shares and still no tax bill due yet. Instead, I could just purchase the common stock but California is not the kind of place where you want to earn taxable dividends (better to get them as deferred capital gains). The details aren't clear, but the gist of it is that I would want a super high strike price to ensure I don't get taxed on a put option expiring out of the money (I want to be nearly certain of being assigned the shares). Maybe somebody who has a lot of tax assets to use up in the US would be interested (because they'll be paying the taxes instead of me). Citigroup? Or perhaps an insurance company who only gets taxed at 14.5% rate on dividends. Effectively, I want to pay them a small fee for the right to use their lower tax rate. Surely there is room for us both to come out ahead. Or perhaps just a Bermuda company where they carry no tax burden.

Pre-determinism is a straw man. It is not a requirement for singular intrinsic value per universe. I have mentioned that each universe has but one past. And each will have but one eventual future. Just because it will have but one eventual future does not mean that it is predetermined. It's just the way things actually are. You go through life and at the end (looking back) you have a singular history. Therefore, when you were born there was but one not yet determined path that you would travel (out of many that you could have potentially travelled). Now, after travelling whatever path you travelled through your life, there was only one of them that you actually travelled on a per-universe basis. At birth, you have but one not yet determined future path per universe (out of many possible paths per universe). The concept of the omniscient being is just an instructional aid. You compared the instructional aid to predeterminism, and then threw it all out together under "predeterminism". Perhaps somebody can help me correctly label what logical fallacy that is filed under. Is it guilt by association, or red herring, straw man, or what? Or a combo? Ok, so you are saying that time will pass and a set of cash flows will be experienced (I agree here). And that those set of cash flows are what should have been used when determining the correct IV? Yes.

I just have great Indian trackers (including those on this board) that point out the blood trail of IV leading into the bushes. I don't myself know how to navigate the wilderness. Buffett would be Kit Carson and I would be an ordinary person following behind. This works out just fine though. I retired 5.5 years ago after 10.5 years of work. Today my RothIRA is equal to 60.75 years of my pre-tax salary on the day I quit. It is 175.5 years of my pre-tax August 1997 starting salary. That money comes entirely from what I was able to save in my 401k and IRA plans as a low-ranking employee of Microsoft -- all of it has since been rolled to the RothIRA. Before Aug-1997, those accounts were empty (didn't exist).

You've pointed out a nuance which I think is correct. It's a different point than Eric and I are trying to make, so I'm worried it will confuse the discussion. If we stick with my 1 year note example- what we're trying to say is that from the perspective Day 1, the IV of the note is set in stone- because the future will only have 1 outcome. What I think you're pointing out is that the IV calculation changes depending on which Day you look at the note. Clearly the NPV figure of the note is much higher if you're looking at it on Day 364-- its almost 100. And you could say, Ah-HA! IV has changed! But then you've missed the whole point. What we're saying is that if you're calculating the NPV of the note Day 1, there can only be one correct answer. Likewise- if you're calculating the NPV of the note on Day 364- there can be only one correct answer. Yes it's basically this way by definition. "All the future" distributable cash flows discounted to "the present". You can change "the present" and the calculation changes, because when you change "the present" from the current quanta to some future quanta, then recalculate it, the part about "all the future" has changed. Logically, when you change the inputs to the equation you get a different answer.

Pre-determinism is a straw man. It is not a requirement for singular intrinsic value per universe. I have mentioned that each universe has but one past. And each will have but one eventual future. Just because it will have but one eventual future does not mean that it is predetermined. It's just the way things actually are. You go through life and at the end (looking back) you have a singular history. Therefore, when you were born there was but one not yet determined path that you would travel (out of many that you could have potentially travelled). Now, after travelling whatever path you travelled through your life, there was only one of them that you actually travelled on a per-universe basis. At birth, you have but one not yet determined future path per universe (out of many possible paths per universe). The concept of the omniscient being is just an instructional aid. You compared the instructional aid to predeterminism, and then threw it all out together under "predeterminism". Perhaps somebody can help me correctly label what logical fallacy that is filed under. Is it guilt by association, or red herring, straw man, or what? Or a combo? I'd be more charitable than to call it a logical fallacy - it's just a false premise. Okay, I'm bad at coming up with the appropriate labels for these things.

Forget about omniscience for a moment. Take a person who is 100% lucky all of the time. Ask him to take a guess at the company's future distributable cash flows and proper discount rate. That's the singular IV of the business. Without determinism! It might be unnatural to find somebody that lucky, but I'm not arguing that it's natural for somebody to be that lucky. It is an instructional aid.

Pre-determinism is a straw man. It is not a requirement for singular intrinsic value per universe. I have mentioned that each universe has but one past. And each will have but one eventual future. Just because it will have but one eventual future does not mean that it is predetermined. It's just the way things actually are. You go through life and at the end (looking back) you have a singular history. Therefore, when you were born there was but one not yet determined path that you would travel (out of many that you could have potentially travelled). Now, after travelling whatever path you travelled through your life, there was only one of them that you actually travelled on a per-universe basis. At birth, you have but one not yet determined future path per universe (out of many possible paths per universe). The concept of the omniscient being is just an instructional aid. You compared the instructional aid to predeterminism, and then threw it all out together under "predeterminism". Perhaps somebody can help me correctly label what logical fallacy that is filed under. Is it guilt by association, or red herring, straw man, or what? Or a combo?