[nine_k]

Buy gold ;)

I wonder why TSLA is compared to dot-com stocks. Tesla produce real, tangible things, with sale and resale value; same applies to their factories. They are in the "real sector", while dot-coms were (and are) in the "virtual" services sector propped by ad revenue.

TSLA can be a bubble, but it must be a different kind of it.

[est31]

Tesla produces real things, yes, any they have already driven change in the car industry. But even if Tesla displaces all other carmakers, which isn't likely, there is a total limit to the car market.

Another reason to tell why Tesla's stock is in bubbly conditions is the timing. Why is it soaring up right now? Is there some event that makes it more likely that people buy cars? No. The current events actually point towards the opposite direction of a recession, where people don't buy new cars. But they are overruled by different events which are more about more about money not knowing where it should go.

This video makes some very interesting points on the "too much money in the markets" question: https://youtu.be/Im0rzTWplwU

[woodandsteel]

I have no idea whether or not Tesla's stock is over-priced. However, it is definitely more than an auto company. It has a solar division, and it make electricity storage systems for home and utilities. Also, there are strong indications it is about to go into manufacturing li-ion cells. It seems to me it is quite possible that at some point it will be worth a trillion.

Let me add it is interesting that people who say Tesla is over-valued so often make this mistake, even though most of what I said is widely known. Perhaps people are being intentionally misleading.

[pete762]

If it is widely known, then there is no money to be made

[woodandsteel]

Good point, so maybe that's their motive.

[sfblah]

Thanks for the video. Worth the watch.

[riffraff]

WebVan[0] and Pets.com[1], two of the most well known busts of the dot-com era, did not use ads.

Ad-based-internet became a big thing many years later, I believe.

(I do agree that TSLA is different, anyway.)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webvan [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pets.com

[wilg]

Strange that you would say Pets.com didn't use ads given in your link there is a section about their famous sock puppet mascot with the following quote:

> Pets.com hired the San Francisco office of TBWA\Chiat\Day to design its advertising campaign.

Also here's a collection of Pets.com TV ads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sICSyC9u5iI

And Webvan did ads too: https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2001/03/05/da...

[benmller313]

I think you misunderstood, the point was that pets.com's revenue model wasn't based on free services supported by advertising sales.

[riffraff]

they advertised, sure, but were not "propped by ad revenue".

Advertising was a cost for them, like it is for Tesla, they weren't in the business of _selling_ ads, like Google or Facebook.

[ac29]

Just because Tesla welds together their primary products doesnt make them any more "real" than the products of Microsoft, Netflix, or Google. Sure, you can't melt down a season of a Netflix TV show and sell it as scrap, but Tesla's value is almost entirely in their IP as well.

[beamatronic]

Did that in 2008. Heard the brrr machines then. Gold crashed. I was only now, 12 years later, able to sell and break even.

[nine_k]

Hmm. Did the same in 2008. Somehow I bought it in the summer when it was still cheap, and gold crashed soon, but went back up in the winter, and stayed above my purchase price all the way since then. (I wish I sold it in 2012, though, before the next crash.)