"the Model S is 6.1" - 7.9" depending on how much air you put in the shocks."
I'm skeptical of that. Working from the SolidWorks drawings provided with Tesla's First Responder documentation, I get 5.5" with the vehicle at rest. The ESC lowers the vehicle at highway speed; don't have any figures for how much, but it's fair to say that it is lower than 5.5".
Back in October, Musk characterized the underside of the battery as "...1/4 inch of armor plate...". He didn't say whether it's aluminum or steel, but the surface area of that plate is on the order of 6,000 in.^2, or close to 42 ft^2. That would give you about 0.87 ft^3 of material, or around 373 lbs. for ASTM A36 plate. If I was doing this, I'd use aluminum.
Proved to be an interesting (and, at times, entertaining) week.
According to my records, you'd need to go back to the first week of May 2012 to find another week posting in excess of two million shares' volume. Volume on the tape was 2,062,445 shares, and FINRA is showing 2,062,145; a very small error given the unusual volume. Total shares sold short were 959,286, about 47% of volume. With that in mind, I'd draw the inference that, while there was obviously enough buying interest to bring the price along, there was a certain amount of "selling into strength".
I'm off for some beer, but I'm certainly looking forward to next week. Y'all have a fine week-end.
It would appear that Abat Connection needs to open a dealership in Harbin:
"An index measuring particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) reached a reading of 1,000 in some parts of Harbin, home to some 11 million people. A level above 300 is considered hazardous, while the World Health Organization recommends a daily level of no more than 20, the report said."
I was especially fond of this quote:
“'After years of effort, the wise and hard-working people of Harbin have finally managed to skip both the middle-class society and the communist society stages, and have now entered a fairyland society!' one commenter posted, according to Reuters."
Amongst the technical literature I have regarding batteries is a manual published by the U.S. Army's CECOM. It starts with the phrase "CAUTION: Batteries are stored energy. So is dynamite.".
This is a very good cautionary note to keep in mind when engineering battery systems. When one considers "dry" batteries, particularly, they contain within their cells both oxidizers and fuel-in other words, the basic ingredients for chemical explosives. It's when these are mismanaged or structurally compromised that we get into trouble, and unfortunately, the battery designed can't be there to hold the consumer's hand to assure that doesn;t happen.
I see that the SEC today handed down a number of findings / orders regarding Knight Capital's little misadventure of 1 August last year (see SEC Release number 70694).
The document is interesting for several reasons, not the least of which is a reasonably detailed description of the event and failures or shortcomings that were involved.
One item I found interesting is a sanction for violations of the "locate" provisions of Regulation SHO. In light of the manner in which the SEC framed this discussion, I think a reasonable question is raised as to whether short sales can be effectively managed in automated trading application whilst adhering to the strict letter of Reg. SHO.
Knight was assessed a $12 million civil penalty, but that may pale in comparison with a Commission-ordered review and certificvation of their automated systems by an outside consultant.
"I would still take my chances being in an EV after a crash vs. an ICE where you have leaking gasoline from severed fuel lines and a ruptured gas tank."
No argument from me there.
I am beginning to think that there may be a running ground clearance issue with the Model S, though. I don't know that I'd characterize it as necessarily a safety issue per se so much as an increased susceptibility to damage generally, and I wouldn't be surprised if insurers start to take notice.
"More and more Chinese stocks have high percentage gain recently."
Chinese stocks in general have fared reasonably well this year. A particular index I track, the BNY Mellon China Select ADR index (^BKTCN on Yahoo!(, is up 22.969% since the first of the year, as of closing today. By contrast, as of Friday's close, the Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Shenzhen markets were all negative YTD.
This, of course, should dispel any notion that here is an endemic anti-Chinese bias in the U.S. markets; Chinese equities are faring better here than at home.
"Can you imagine living and breathing in an environment like that?"
Back in the late '70's my work frequently took me to the Ohio River along that stretch from roughly Pittsburgh down to Marietta or so. That whole corridor was lined with smelters, coke ovens, rolling mills power stations, chemical plants, and refineries, and, of course, this was before the effects of the Clean Air Act began to be manifested.
They'd have temperature inversions around this time of year, and you could barely see to drive. I was in Martin's Ferry one night during shift change at a rolling mill there, and nearly hit a group of fellows in a crosswalk. The street lights were on, and the area was otherwise well-lit. The smoke was just so thick you could barely see 15 meters.
Needed to roll up the car windows and light up a cigar just to get some fresh air.
Around my part of the country, we used to gripe a lot about the Clean Air Act (still do), but there's no denying the improvement in air quality. The other side of that coin, though, is a terrific loss of industry in that region.
Seeing the photo's of Harbin's situation, I'm fairly certain this has mostly to do with a massive consumption of coal, coupled with little or nothing in the way of smokestack emissions controls. Reducing vehicle emissions won't hurt, naturally, but I think they really need to get a handle on the coal to make a true difference.
Taking a moment here to wish all a Happy Thanksgiving. For those also (or alternatively) observing Hanukkah, may your celebrations also be delightful.
The beer's a-callin; I'll look in on y'all next week sometime.
Just for the record, sport, I have NEVER asserted that pink sheets companies don't need to report. Quite the opposite, in fact, I've posted the statutes, regulations, etc., in their entirety, and shown examples of companies that have "done it right" by filing for exemption.
Universal Travel Group (UTRA on the OTC system, fka UTA on NYSE) was revoked today.
UTRA had voluntarily delisted from the NYSE in April of 2012, but were delinquent in their periodic filings from 3Q 2011 forward.
Notably, they are still litigating a class action (no settlement offer yet) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Similarly, China Intelligent Lighting (CILE) and NIVS Intelligent Technology Group (NIVS), both revoked last week, are still mired in litigation. With that in mind, it would appear that any reticence the SEC may have had about revoking registrations of firms whilst legal action was pending is much diminished lately.
Evidently unimpeded by the government shutdown, the SEC today issued an Order Instituting Proceedings (OIP) today requiring China Ritar Power (CRTP) to show cause why they should not have their registration revoked for failing to make their periodic filings (since 3Q 2010).
Trading is suspended in CRTP effective from this morning through midnight on 17 October.
CRTP is yet another thin volume stock; last trading was just 1,000 shares on 2 October, closing at $0.36.
The SEC revoked the registration of China Ritar Power (CRTP) today (See SEC release 70729, today's date.). Recalling that they were under a trading suspension from 4 through 17 October, shareholders there would have had just two trading days to exit once trading was resumed. As it happens, there have been no traded whatever in CRTP since 2 October, so in this case it's immaterial.
In other business, the SEC has charged Diebold, Inc. (DBD) under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for bribery of foreign officials (see Litigation Release number 22849, today's date; also Case 13-CV-01609, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia). Charges include:
$1.6 million in trips and entertainment to officials of government-owned banks in China
$1.2 million in bribes on the sale of ATM's to officials of private banks in Russia
$147,000 for trips and entertainment to officials of government-owned banks in Indonesia.
(If I were the Indonesians, I'd be insulted.)
I'm not understanding your point, here.
SPU holds its NASDAQ listing to this day. Clearly, if the NASDAQ exchange did ask for any extraordinary information from them, they co-operated and reached a mutually agreeable conclusion.
SPU has also remained current in its SEC filing obligations, has held its regular shareholder meetings, etc.. True, the SEC has occasionally sent query letters to them regarding procedural errors in their periodic filings, but these appear to have been satisfactorily resolved.
The class action suit against them also appears to be moving toward settlement, with the preliminary approval order having been filed on 18 September.
Actually, this is the type of language one more typically sees in settlements involving "whistleblowers". Labor relations, wage / hour administration, wrongful termination, that sort of thing.
I'm sure there's a good reason for it, just noting hat it's not exactly pro forma in shareholder suits.
That's an absolute hoot, "Skipper". When you're telling fishing tales, no sense talking about mullet when you can just as easily call it a marlin, eh?
Starboard watch, man the pumps!
The CleanTech matter is interesting. I had supposed that, having won their delisting appeal before the SEC, they would promptly move to regain their listing.
However, they remain delinquent in their SEC filings (last filing was for 1Q 2012, filed 25 June 2012), and thus per se ineligible for NASDAQ listing. Makes one wonder whether more is going on there than has been revelaed in the press.
"Two weeks ago someone here stated they believe the plaintiff side may have a chair empty."
I presume you're referring to this:
"Fritz, I'd have to suppose that if there was anything like a reasonable prospect of making out a case against VVR, or more importantly, if they're collectable, even a marginal case, somebody would already have sued them.
In fact, if either of those conditions existed, I'd have expected them to have been brought into Sanderson. Consider:
From the Plaintiff's viewpoint, there is obviously a limited pool of money available here for settlement, and bringing them in even with marginal facts provides an opportunity to secure some contribution toward the final settlement amount.
On the Defense side, particularly if there's anything like a compelling case against them, you now have another party with whom liability can be apportioned, potentially reducing your own settlement contribution. Even better, if VVR failed to respond, you have the 'empty chair' to which you could point and deflect liability."
That was actually last Thursday. You'll note that it isn't the plaintiff's side to which I'm referring when I speak of the "empty chair", but the defense. A frequently-employed defensive tactic is to bring in one or more additional parties amongst whom liability can be apportioned. If one or more of these fails to respond, the defendant can point to the "empty chair" and allege, without fear of contradiction, that the absent party is primarily at fault.
Rosen already has 'em in a case in Western District, State of Washington (11-CV-01423). Third amended complaint was filed on 4 February of this year.
Probably don't need to worry about Pomerantz getting much out of 'em; the insurance coverage is going to be spread pretty thin.