Is Tesla a good investment?

[ColoradoTribe]

I realize my criticisms here are not received with open arms to most of the country.

You might take some time in self-reflection. Beating on a strawman is not making a valid criticism. If you choose to stop making caricatures to beat up and I would bet you get a better reception.

Beating on a strawman? Explain please. I feel I have been very fair to the counterargument.

You created exaggerated caricatures of mistymoney's statements and positions, then ridiculed the mistymoney via the exaggerated caricatures you created rather than engaging in honest discussion. You even put "quotes" around your exaggerated caricatures - which I would be inclined to call bald-face lying.

Example: "I will pay any price for an new EV, no price is too high for saving the planet!"

My friend, this is the MMM forum. I reserve the right to be hyperbolic and doll out facepunches. I am not being insulting or speaking with a tone or intent of malice. If that gets misconstrued as straw manning, then we are not speaking in the same context. I thought I was being clear with the quotes that they were not mistymoney's words, but rather an exaggerated interpretation of them.

That was not at all clear and not how quoting works. If TomTX hadn't pointed out that you were misquoting Misty I would have assumed she wrote the words you were placing in quotes. Perhaps you need a face punch for feeling the need to “exaggerate” or parady someone’s clearly stated words to bolster your argument and sense of superiority.

[bacchi]

What would you call it, if not irrational, for a company to lose 60% of its stock price value, at the same time it’s making industry leading margins and growing 40-50% YOY, mostly because of macro declines and largely irrelevant Twitter noise. I could understand some amount of drop due to Elon’s stock sales and larger recession fears, but the stock price has become completely detached from the company’s execution. This will eventually be rectified, which makes the current stock price attractive IMO.

I'd call it a realization that 40-50% yoy growth can't happen forever. If it continues for another ~12 years, Tesla would be the only car company left in the world.

Further, the repeated mantra of the stans is that "There's no competition." There is, though. It's not a lot but, in the states, there are plenty of EV choices out there and many of them cost a lot less than a Model 3 or Y. More models are coming. In Tesla's #2 market, Tesla has competition that'll probably outsell them this quarter (and not from subcompact cars either).*

So why is the stock declining? Because the stock was supported by the Musk myth and it was treated like a WEB2/FAANG stock. The emperor is naked, it turns out.

I could be wrong, though, and Tesla may execute at 40+% growth for the next few years. Their Mexico factory may meet that demand and Tesla will be selling at...4M/year? The $45k+ car market isn't endless, however, and they'll need to release that 30k Tesla sooner rather than later.



* Weekly EV registrations come out tomorrow (Tue) in China.

[TomTX]

I'd call it a realization that 40-50% yoy growth can't happen forever. If it continues for another ~12 years, Tesla would be the only car company left in the world.

Everyone in the discussion realizes that as a general concept. However:

1) That same argument has been made for over a decade, with no signs of slowing yet. Why specifically should it be a big deal in 2022 when there is no definitive sign of slowing?

2) Disruption can cause huge shifts in markets. At one point Ford had 75% of the global motor vehicle market. Later on, GM had well over 50%. If Tesla hits just 25% of the global car market, that's a trillion dollars a year in revenue from car sales.

3) Tesla doesn't just sell cars. Sure, that's the biggest chunk of their current business - but if you overfocus on that, you miss the potentially bigger picture:

• Tesla is well established in energy markets - specifically solar installs, storage installs and grid services. Just renewable energy installations were ~$1T globally in 2022 and are expected to continue rising rapidly.
• Tesla is now a retail electricity provider.
• Tesla sells car insurance.
• Tesla now produces a portion of their own battery cells at a rate where they can supply 1k vehicles/week, capturing more of the supply chain value.
• Medium and heavy duty trucks/buses will have huge uptake of electrification over the next decade - and Tesla just delivered their first few dozen Semi.
  

[Vashy]

I'd call it a realization that 40-50% yoy growth can't happen forever. If it continues for another ~12 years, Tesla would be the only car company left in the world.

3) Tesla doesn't just sell cars. Sure, that's the biggest chunk of their current business - but if you overfocus on that, you miss the potentially bigger picture:

• Tesla is well established in energy markets - specifically solar installs, storage installs and grid services. Just renewable energy installations were ~$1T globally in 2022 and are expected to continue rising rapidly.
• Tesla is now a retail electricity provider.
• Tesla sells car insurance.

[/li]
[/list]

Wouldn't that mean it's also an insurer and a utility, with the "conglomerate discount/penalty" applied to it? Valuations for insurers/utilities aren't >38x P/E though.

[bacchi]

I'd call it a realization that 40-50% yoy growth can't happen forever. If it continues for another ~12 years, Tesla would be the only car company left in the world.

Everyone in the discussion realizes that as a general concept. However:

1) That same argument has been made for over a decade, with no signs of slowing yet. Why specifically should it be a big deal in 2022 when there is no definitive sign of slowing?

Are you certain of that given Tesla's rebates/incentives in China and their plant closure in Shanghai? Why would they do that if there wasn't a sign of slowing?

edit: It's Q4 and Tesla will almost certainly meet 40% growth in 2022. 2023 is the big question mark.

2) Disruption can cause huge shifts in markets. At one point Ford had 75% of the global motor vehicle market. Later on, GM had well over 50%. If Tesla hits just 25% of the global car market, that's a trillion dollars a year in revenue from car sales.

It's possible but that would be 4x the revenue of Toyota. Also, do you think the EU will let Tesla control 25% of the car market? Would China allow that (and they're the #1 car market in the world)?

3) Tesla doesn't just sell cars. Sure, that's the biggest chunk of their current business - but if you overfocus on that, you miss the potentially bigger picture:

• Tesla is well established in energy markets - specifically solar installs, storage installs and grid services. Just renewable energy installations were ~$1T globally in 2022 and are expected to continue rising rapidly.
• Tesla is now a retail electricity provider.
• Tesla sells car insurance.
• Tesla now produces a portion of their own battery cells at a rate where they can supply 1k vehicles/week, capturing more of the supply chain value.
• Medium and heavy duty trucks/buses will have huge uptake of electrification over the next decade - and Tesla just delivered their first few dozen Semi.
  

What Vashy wrote. How does Tesla differentiate itself in the car insurance market to achieve a 38x PE? Does any utility have a 38x PE? POR doesn't and DUK doesn't. Wouldn't that be a drag on Tesla's profit margins, which would bring down the stock price?

[theoverlook]

This base model comparison should settle the question about whether the Tesla model 3 is an economical car. If anyone is wondering why Chevy made the Bolt like they did, this is why. It could be more economical than the longtime leader among cheap compact sedans, the Toyota Corolla.

I disagree with their methods and calculations. They show far too much depreciation for the Tesla, and assume that owners of these cars will sell after 5 years. A value minded owner will not sell after only 5 years, and look at how Teslas actually depreciate before swallowing this data. How much is a 2018 - first year for significant production of model 3 - Tesla Model 3 selling for now, and how much was it new? One local example is a Tesla Model 3 LR RWD. New that was a $45,200 car. The cheapest used one locally has 29k miles and is $38,899, for a total depreciation over 5 years (2023 model years are out now) of $6,301. Edmunds assumes $22,533 in depreciation! I'm also not sure why repairs are listed as $2,100 when the Tesla warranty is 8 years / unlimited miles for powertrain and 4 years / 50k miles for everything else. That should probably be zero. So far we're at $18,332 in outright errors or intentional misstatements. I won't bother going further, it seems pretty worthless as a data point.

[StashingAway]

I realize my criticisms here are not received with open arms to most of the country.

You might take some time in self-reflection. Beating on a strawman is not making a valid criticism. If you choose to stop making caricatures to beat up and I would bet you get a better reception.

Beating on a strawman? Explain please. I feel I have been very fair to the counterargument.

You created exaggerated caricatures of mistymoney's statements and positions, then ridiculed the mistymoney via the exaggerated caricatures you created rather than engaging in honest discussion. You even put "quotes" around your exaggerated caricatures - which I would be inclined to call bald-face lying.

Example: "I will pay any price for an new EV, no price is too high for saving the planet!"

My friend, this is the MMM forum. I reserve the right to be hyperbolic and doll out facepunches. I am not being insulting or speaking with a tone or intent of malice. If that gets misconstrued as straw manning, then we are not speaking in the same context. I thought I was being clear with the quotes that they were not mistymoney's words, but rather an exaggerated interpretation of them.

That was not at all clear and not how quoting works. If TomTX hadn't pointed out that you were misquoting Misty I would have assumed she wrote the words you were placing in quotes. Perhaps you need a face punch for feeling the need to “exaggerate” or parady someone’s clearly stated words to bolster your argument and sense of superiority.

Yes, I can see how it is perceived to be constructed poorly on my end. I was under the impression that the quotes not being put in the quote boxes would be enough to show I'm not directly quoting, but did not consider that this would be read too casually for that to be picked up. Regardless, I concede that it is confusing.

I don't conceded to doing it intentionally or out of malice, which is what I seem to be being accused of. I also still stand by my point, and that I was also, perhaps too seriously, recalling a trend of calling out status norms that are often called out on the MMM forum.

Here is where I feel that Tom (and you) took my intent wrong, and the part I wish to correct, acknowledging that I understand how you took it that way.

which I would be inclined to call bald-face lying.

We won't agree on my main point, but I am not lying. I am not bothered on a personal level that you don't agree with me, but I am participating in good faith conversation.

[waltworks]

Lots of cars look like they didn't depreciate much in the last few years, but that's just a pandemic artifact. Used car prices are already falling and they'll fall a lot in the next year or two, and then Tesla (and all other cars) depreciation will look normal again.

At some point I told my EV-crazy son that if Tesla hit $100 a share I'd buy him a few shares, but given Musk's behavior especially wrt Russia/Ukraine, I'm not sure I could bring myself to do it. An actual Tesla car is a hard no for us at this point (my son, who is teaching himself Ukrainian, is furious about the Ukraine stuff).

At some point nobody wants to be associated with a crazy a-hole and I think Musk has managed to achieve that status now.

-W

[vand]

Got no real axe to grind in this one, but it's clear that the Tesla bubble has burst now.  As impressive as Tesla's growth has been, the market is clearly indication that a sharp slowdown is now baked in.

The market does not always act rationally and the stock price is not the company. The company continues to execute and grow rapidly. Since I’m an investor and not a trader the short term volatility does not concern me beyond the buying opportunity it presents.

All that really means is you have no capacity for re-evaluation of your thesis based on new evidence. Sure, the market doesn't act rationally, but that's not to say every huge drop in a company's stock is also irrational.

however, you interpret it as completely rational, and the upmovement as irrational. How is that different?

I never said that at all.
Most price spikes are indeed irrationally large, as are most collapses - how else would we know what a fair price is if we don't at first exceed it?  that's just the way the market works. Prices don't smoothly tend towards fair value, but rather from one extreme to another.

The trouble with buying Tesla today is that you have no idea if the price will bottom at $115 or $75 or $55 as its a falling knife.

[FINate]

Lots of cars look like they didn't depreciate much in the last few years, but that's just a pandemic artifact. Used car prices are already falling and they'll fall a lot in the next year or two, and then Tesla (and all other cars) depreciation will look normal again.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-used-car-price-bubble-110559465.html

[FINate]

Ouch, TSLA taking a beating. Down more than 11% today, -42% for Dec, -73% for 2022. Hearing rumors/suggestions that margin calls may be immanent.

[GilesMM]

Yes, Tesla appears to be shooting the rapids.  Massive China slowdown. Sagging sales in the US (thus incentives).  Unhinged CEO. The entire EV trend appears to be slowing.  Too many issues for one company at this stage in its infancy.

[ColoradoTribe]

Tesla’s gigafactory in Shanghai is having some downtime at the end of December and then in January for the Chinese NY. Chinese NY is the biggest holiday in China and Tesla employees were not given off for NY the past two years. This is past due. However, some parts of the factory (probably those that make limiting factor components) will remain in operation over the holiday.

The December slowdown has more to do with COVID than anything else. Half the country seemingly has COVID at the moment. Workers at Tesla and Tesla suppliers are out sick. Does anyone really think it unreasonable to cut back production for a brief stint in the midst of this COVID outbreak?

I will concede that Tesla did need to lower prices about 5% at the end of 2022 to stoke domestic China demand. Consider though that Tesla Shanghai had drastically increased production over the course of 2022. So, was it increased production or weakening demand (or some of both) that necessitated the price cut?

So, to put this in perspective. Tesla had to lower prices, perhaps temporarily, in one country, where they dramatically increased production over the past two years, in the middle of a global economic downturn and the sudden reversal of China’s zero-COVID policy, such that they will only be making 25% margin instead of 30% margin, assuming the increased efficiency from the larger production volumes or reduced material costs don’t make-up for the price drop.

Forgive me if I don’t panic sell, which is what Wall Street was hoping I’d do with my shares.

Anyway, appears for now, TSLA has established a bottom. IF P&D numbers for Q4 are solid, I expect Tesla will continue this rebound. Regardless, Tesla the company continues to execute, Tesla energy revenues will take a big jump up this quarter, and 4680 cell production is finally picking up pace (enough cells for 1,000 vehicles/week). In house cell production will further expand Tesla’s technological lead and margins.

Bears will continue looking at the day-to-day news feed to sieze upon the reason-du-jour that Tesla is over-valued, destined to fail, or about to be overtaken by competition. This has been the bear MO for the as long as Tesla has existed, all while Tesla has grown by leaps and bounds. Never looking backward to admit the last 20 reason-du-jours were proven to be nothing-burgers or grossly exaggerated, just quickly moving onto the next secure in the knowledge that one day they’ll be proven right. Laser focused on the individual trees that support their preconception, largely oblivious to the global-disruption sized forest springing up around them.

[ColoradoTribe]

Tesla Model Y was the top seller in Europe (all vehicles not just EVs) in two of the last three months (Sept and Nov). This is likely to continue into 2023 as Berlin is still ramping up. While China is an important market, any discussion of Tesla demand needs to look at the global market in the context of QoQ or YOY results.  Bears are notorious for cherry picking results from one or two countries in a particular month as being reflective of overall Tesla demand. Delivery waves, changing regulatory frameworks/incentives, and currency exchange rates can result in lumpy deliveries month to month in specific countries or even regions, which is why its important to keep an eye on the big picture over the long-term to get an accurate take.

https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/tesla-model-y-became-europes-best-selling-car-in-november-surpassing-longtime-leader-vw-golf

[TomTX]

Hm, rethinking this.

[AJDZee]

This thread has been a treat to read :D

My 2 cents, yes i think it's a great investment right now.  I picked up Tesla stock this week, I haven't held TSLA since 2013 (yes I'm kicking myself for selling after making 30% in less than a month), but finally with the P/E below 40, to me, that's a good value for the company that continues to grow production as well continues to create new market segments.

Other than the P/E finally coming down, the main reason I'm excited for Tesla is it's semi production. I know they only have 1 factory currently and there's only so many batteries to go around, but I think this will be huge growing market. Every company on earth is pledging to reduce their carbon footprint by crazy amounts in the next 10, 20, 30 years... the truth is most have no clue how they'll get there. They will be hungry to find solutions anywhere they can (hopefully not C offsets), and electrifying their fleet seems like a great solution to hit their targets. (this assumption of course is predicated there will continue to be market pressure for companies to continue to go green, and that TSLA will hold

But I'm no warren buffet so we'll see! I've told myself I'll hang on to them for at least 2 quarters to see if their earnings continue to grow.

[TomTX]

But I'm no warren buffet so we'll see! I've told myself I'll hang on to them for at least 2 quarters to see if their earnings continue to grow.

Keep in mind that 1Q revenue tends to dip from 4Q while also being a significant uptick from the prior year 1Q

[ColoradoTribe]

This thread has been a treat to read :D

My 2 cents, yes i think it's a great investment right now.  I picked up Tesla stock this week, I haven't held TSLA since 2013 (yes I'm kicking myself for selling after making 30% in less than a month), but finally with the P/E below 40, to me, that's a good value for the company that continues to grow production as well continues to create new market segments.

Other than the P/E finally coming down, the main reason I'm excited for Tesla is it's semi production. I know they only have 1 factory currently and there's only so many batteries to go around, but I think this will be huge growing market. Every company on earth is pledging to reduce their carbon footprint by crazy amounts in the next 10, 20, 30 years... the truth is most have no clue how they'll get there. They will be hungry to find solutions anywhere they can (hopefully not C offsets), and electrifying their fleet seems like a great solution to hit their targets. (this assumption of course is predicated there will continue to be market pressure for companies to continue to go green, and that TSLA will hold

But I'm no warren buffet so we'll see! I've told myself I'll hang on to them for at least 2 quarters to see if their earnings continue to grow.

Yep, market has gifted a lot of former TSLA investors a great re-entry point. I agree with you on the potential of the semi. I agree companies will love to tout their green credentials while lowering their C footprint. However, I don’t think the green aspects are what is going to drive semi sells. The fleet economics alone will be the primary driver. Once Pepsi's real world results verify Tesla’s semi specs, then the game has changed overnight and any fleet not operating EVs will be at a competitive disadvantage and paying a premium to ship their goods to market. The commercial transition to EV will happen much faster and with more urgency than the retail EV conversion, which involves converting one car owner at a time.

[jnw]

A friend  of mine said he always wanted a Tesla but has changed his mind recently and is going to purchase an EV from another company ... all due to Elon's very divisive statements.  For someone that is supposed to be smart, he sure doesn't act like it.   I don't think it's a good investment because Elon is sabotaging things.   My friend and I really liked Elon until recently.

I wrote a few months ago in this thread I believe,  that I think his divisive statements, along with acquisition of Twitter, were going to hurt TSLA, and sure enough it's gone down quite a bit since then.

But who knows what will happen.

[AJDZee]

This thread has been a treat to read :D

My 2 cents, yes i think it's a great investment right now.  I picked up Tesla stock this week, I haven't held TSLA since 2013 (yes I'm kicking myself for selling after making 30% in less than a month), but finally with the P/E below 40, to me, that's a good value for the company that continues to grow production as well continues to create new market segments.

Other than the P/E finally coming down, the main reason I'm excited for Tesla is it's semi production. I know they only have 1 factory currently and there's only so many batteries to go around, but I think this will be huge growing market. Every company on earth is pledging to reduce their carbon footprint by crazy amounts in the next 10, 20, 30 years... the truth is most have no clue how they'll get there. They will be hungry to find solutions anywhere they can (hopefully not C offsets), and electrifying their fleet seems like a great solution to hit their targets. (this assumption of course is predicated there will continue to be market pressure for companies to continue to go green, and that TSLA will hold

But I'm no warren buffet so we'll see! I've told myself I'll hang on to them for at least 2 quarters to see if their earnings continue to grow.

Yep, market has gifted a lot of former TSLA investors a great re-entry point. I agree with you on the potential of the semi. I agree companies will love to tout their green credentials while lowering their C footprint. However, I don’t think the green aspects are what is going to drive semi sells. The fleet economics alone will be the primary driver. Once Pepsi's real world results verify Tesla’s semi specs, then the game has changed overnight and any fleet not operating EVs will be at a competitive disadvantage and paying a premium to ship their goods to market. The commercial transition to EV will happen much faster and with more urgency than the retail EV conversion, which involves converting one car owner at a time.

I really hope you're right! Pepsi has the first real world test case, but several major companies have placed orders as well. I hope the commercial transition to EV is fast too, the incentives are there... especially because these companies need to replace their fleet on an on-going basis anyway, so the investment to EV is really just the delta over the normal BAU fleet investment.

Even with me being bullish on the semi growth, I don't know if the semi will ever be a significant part of their revenues, I think the car segment will continue to grow for quite some time. This is just my opinion, but it feels to me like we're just now leaving the 'early adopter' phase...no? EVs have been around for over 10 years, but there's always been barriers of ownership. Now it feels like EVs have worked their way to being normalized... people are actively planning their homes around future-proofing their power systems, there are so many good options out now. Tesla won't keep it's EV market share going forward, but I don't think they even need to for the current share price to be a good deal.

[mistymoney]

This thread has been a treat to read :D

My 2 cents, yes i think it's a great investment right now.  I picked up Tesla stock this week, I haven't held TSLA since 2013 (yes I'm kicking myself for selling after making 30% in less than a month), but finally with the P/E below 40, to me, that's a good value for the company that continues to grow production as well continues to create new market segments.

Other than the P/E finally coming down, the main reason I'm excited for Tesla is it's semi production. I know they only have 1 factory currently and there's only so many batteries to go around, but I think this will be huge growing market. Every company on earth is pledging to reduce their carbon footprint by crazy amounts in the next 10, 20, 30 years... the truth is most have no clue how they'll get there. They will be hungry to find solutions anywhere they can (hopefully not C offsets), and electrifying their fleet seems like a great solution to hit their targets. (this assumption of course is predicated there will continue to be market pressure for companies to continue to go green, and that TSLA will hold

But I'm no warren buffet so we'll see! I've told myself I'll hang on to them for at least 2 quarters to see if their earnings continue to grow.

Yep, market has gifted a lot of former TSLA investors a great re-entry point. I agree with you on the potential of the semi. I agree companies will love to tout their green credentials while lowering their C footprint. However, I don’t think the green aspects are what is going to drive semi sells. The fleet economics alone will be the primary driver. Once Pepsi's real world results verify Tesla’s semi specs, then the game has changed overnight and any fleet not operating EVs will be at a competitive disadvantage and paying a premium to ship their goods to market. The commercial transition to EV will happen much faster and with more urgency than the retail EV conversion, which involves converting one car owner at a time.

I really hope you're right! Pepsi has the first real world test case, but several major companies have placed orders as well. I hope the commercial transition to EV is fast too, the incentives are there... especially because these companies need to replace their fleet on an on-going basis anyway, so the investment to EV is really just the delta over the normal BAU fleet investment.

Even with me being bullish on the semi growth, I don't know if the semi will ever be a significant part of their revenues, I think the car segment will continue to grow for quite some time. This is just my opinion, but it feels to me like we're just now leaving the 'early adopter' phase...no? EVs have been around for over 10 years, but there's always been barriers of ownership. Now it feels like EVs have worked their way to being normalized... people are actively planning their homes around future-proofing their power systems, there are so many good options out now. Tesla won't keep it's EV market share going forward, but I don't think they even need to for the current share price to be a good deal.

I think it depends on where the FSD goes. If Tesla can move freight without drivers in 5-10 years? Kind of crazy to think of but I think that is where they are trying to get.

[bacchi]

Tesla deliveries missed on Q4: 405k vs 427k/417k consensus. It had 40% yearly growth vs 2021 and 18% growth from Q3 2022. Excess inventory, or maybe cars in ships, is 9.4% of Q4 deliveries.

https://electrek.co/2023/01/02/tesla-record-vehicles-delivered-q4-2022/

Given the EOY incentives (in the US and China), interest rates, and covid in China, this wasn't too much of a surprise. Semi deliveries from my quick search were 32; it'll be fascinating to watch those deliveries grow.

[vand]

Not specific to Tesla, but for those who keep thinking the sky's the limit, I'd recommend this excellent video basically reiterating all the problems we know are associated with growth investing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bokYM_UAMGA

- little evidence that higher growth persists over 1-5 years for both revenue and especially earnings
- Analyst expectations are too optimistic, and the higher the initial growth rate the worse this becomes
- Nominal GDP growth tends to be a real restricting factor
- Best growers tend to be clustered in the middle quintiles, not the extremities (= avoid hyper growth and value traps)
- This is unfolding again as Nasdaq-100 earnings growth is now being outpaced by the S&P's

[ColoradoTribe]

Tesla deliveries missed on Q4: 405k vs 427k/417k consensus. It had 40% yearly growth vs 2021 and 18% growth from Q3 2022. Excess inventory, or maybe cars in ships, is 9.4% of Q4 deliveries.

https://electrek.co/2023/01/02/tesla-record-vehicles-delivered-q4-2022/

Given the EOY incentives (in the US and China), interest rates, and covid in China, this wasn't too much of a surprise. Semi deliveries from my quick search were 32; it'll be fascinating to watch those deliveries grow.

YOY growth in production was 47%. Like you mention, the Q4 miss on deliveries was largely due to logistics and Tesla’s stated desire to unwind the EOQ delivery wave/rush. Lot of cars still on ships and stuck in ports, but no indication these cars don’t have buyers waiting on the other end. Could be that some softening of demand in China moved Tesla to export more of MIC vehicles to Australia, SE Asia and Europe, which meant more cars in transit at EOQ. Having two weeks worth fo production in transit at the EOQ will likely be the new normal going forward.

Phenomenal YOY growth given the macro environment, pandemic, and supply chain issues. Exiting 2022 with a 1.7 Million yearly production rate. Target for 2023 should be for around 2 million vehicles.

[mistymoney]

What is the insight here on the big price drop? The Q4 miss on #cars seemed pretty minor, but the family in a tesla off a cliff in california seems to be big news.

I read the article, and 1- there is no indication that autopilot or FSD was involved, and emergency services was shocked that there was any survivor when they first saw movement, and then it turned out all family members were injured but alive. I think that is saying something about the saftey of the car?

Interested to hear others' interpretation on this.

Wishing the family the best recovery, of course. Don't mean to seem careless of them at all in discussing this event in the investment context.

But I am wondering why everything bad that happens to in a tesla is front page news with the Tesla as an emphasis. Someone in a tesla caught on camera picking their nose at main and central streets! Of course if enhanced autopilot or FSD was a factor, that I can see being quite newsworty. But so far not the case according to reports.

Although i was targeting acquiring 1-2 shares per payperiod, the PE I calculate now is about 28? So I picked up some extra today (Payday is Friday)- and lengthening my expectation on seeing an upside on tesla overall. My initial purchase of 100 shares (now 300 after the split) is down over 50%. My goal will be to buy in dribs and drabs here and there with a target of somewhere between 600-1000 shares. So will keep buying tesla as a very small portion of my regular investments until I hit the target amount, or I retire and stop accumulating, whichever comes first.

[MacGyverIt]

At some point I told my EV-crazy son that if Tesla hit $100 a share I'd buy him a few shares, but given Musk's behavior especially wrt Russia/Ukraine, I'm not sure I could bring myself to do it.

You are a good human, Walt 👏🏻

[MacGyverIt]

I think it depends on where the FSD goes. If Tesla can move freight without drivers in 5-10 years? Kind of crazy to think of but I think that is where they are trying to get.

FSD... and also the federal and state govt approvals for FSD approval. (Regardless of whether it's TSLA, Ford, GMC, etc.) And how the auto insurance industry could be impacted by FSD - if the car's software is driving then is the driver still liable? I have often wondered if/to what extent the auto insurance industry would lobby against FSD.

[Viking Thor]

I think it will continue to go down in the near term, and then at some point an enormous uptick.

Right now there is overwhelming negative press and stock sentiment. Good news in terms of performance or development has no impact, and any minor negative news drives a big stock decline.

It may take scaling of the cyber truck combined with improving macro (eg rate increases paused, or lowered). I am still up more than double from my cost basis but I'm not bullish for the first half 2022.

However still bullish long term and if it dips lower I'll pick up a few more shares.

We will at some future point be looking at absurdly low valuation relative to growth rate and profitability and that will trigger the stock price to get momentum. Might take 6-24 months for that to happen.

[FINate]

I think it depends on where the FSD goes. If Tesla can move freight without drivers in 5-10 years? Kind of crazy to think of but I think that is where they are trying to get.

FSD... and also the federal and state govt approvals for FSD approval. (Regardless of whether it's TSLA, Ford, GMC, etc.) And how the auto insurance industry could be impacted by FSD - if the car's software is driving then is the driver still liable? I have often wondered if/to what extent the auto insurance industry would lobby against FSD.

FSD is a confusing marketing term, so much so that Tesla can no longer use it in California. SAE Levels of Autonomy is an actual agreed upon standard. FSD implies Level 5 Autonomy and that's been the goal, but in reality it's a long way off and is essentially Level 3. Waymo and GM Cruise have actual Level 4 Autonomous vehicles in operation in the wild. These are fully self-driving within defined operating conditions (typically predefined routes/areas and weather), which is quite useful in the common use case as most rideshare rides are relatively short and within an urban area.

In any case, I personally will not trust any Level 4-5 system that does not assign liability to the parent corporation while active.

[chieftain]

Admittedly I have not read the whole thread, but:

Are people who've had Tesla stock for a while continuing to hold? Tesla is one of the few individual stocks I hold, having bought around 10 years ago. I'm holding on to it for now, although it's painful to watch its continued decline (down another 14% today alone!).

[mistymoney]

I think it depends on where the FSD goes. If Tesla can move freight without drivers in 5-10 years? Kind of crazy to think of but I think that is where they are trying to get.

FSD... and also the federal and state govt approvals for FSD approval. (Regardless of whether it's TSLA, Ford, GMC, etc.) And how the auto insurance industry could be impacted by FSD - if the car's software is driving then is the driver still liable? I have often wondered if/to what extent the auto insurance industry would lobby against FSD.

oh - that is an interesting thought! Tesla does do their own insurance, so I would think that would be the best deal for anyone using FSD.

But yeah the lobby angle might be something that comes into play at some point.

[bacchi]

What is the insight here on the big price drop? The Q4 miss on #cars seemed pretty minor, but the family in a tesla off a cliff in california seems to be big news.

The stock drop is all about the miss as it suggests that Tesla's high growth is starting to slow. If Tesla is starting to look more like a car company rather than a tech stock, why should it be valued so high?

As JP Morgan's Brinkman noted, "We have questioned the company’s ability to sustain this rate of growth [50% CAGR]."

[mistymoney]

Admittedly I have not read the whole thread, but:

Are people who've had Tesla stock for a while continuing to hold? Tesla is one of the few individual stocks I hold, having bought around 10 years ago. I'm holding on to it for now, although it's painful to watch its continued decline (down another 14% today alone!).

I am holding and adding. I do have concerns about musk being a negative factor in product demand, I don't have concerns about the products themselves.

I think we can assume that most CEOs are assholes, this one is just very publically and vocally so and going very much against the grain of tesla's core consumer base, which naturally is much greener and forward thinking that those who don't consider the environment when making purchases. Ford and GM were supporting trump at one point, and legislation that would hinder the move to EV weren't they? So what is the alternative? Toyata was an early forerunner, and now that they got behind for whatever reason, seems they are trying to delay the move to EVs until they can catch up? pretty gross considering the climate crisis.



Buy merch from quieter assholes? that seems what some are doing....

[mistymoney]

What is the insight here on the big price drop? The Q4 miss on #cars seemed pretty minor, but the family in a tesla off a cliff in california seems to be big news.

The stock drop is all about the miss as it suggests that Tesla's high growth is starting to slow. If Tesla is starting to look more like a car company rather than a tech stock, why should it be valued so high?

As JP Morgan's Brinkman noted, "We have questioned the company’s ability to sustain this rate of growth [50% CAGR]."

Thanks, I thought the huge drop couldn't have just been that, but if it is, I guess says some are very spooked going into 2023.

[FINate]

I think we can assume that most CEOs are assholes, this one is just very publically and vocally so and going very much against the grain of tesla's core consumer base, which naturally is much greener and forward thinking that those who don't consider the environment when making purchases. Ford and GM were supporting trump at one point, and legislation that would hinder the move to EV weren't they? So what is the alternative? Toyata was an early forerunner, and now that they got behind for whatever reason, seems they are trying to delay the move to EVs until they can catch up? pretty gross considering the climate crisis.

Source for the bolded? I spent some time searching the interwebs and didn't find much of interest.

Even if Ford and GM resisted EVs initially, they are all in now. GM is planning on investing $35 billion in EVs and Ford $50 billion, and they've secured long-term partnerships with lithium mining companies (https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-big-boys-have-a-grip-on-ev-batteries-the-industry-cannot-break-free-from-207613.html).

More on what's going on behind the scenes with lithium mining: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-29/tesla-tsla-lithium-mine-strategy-tested-by-ford-gm

[ColoradoTribe]

What is the insight here on the big price drop? The Q4 miss on #cars seemed pretty minor, but the family in a tesla off a cliff in california seems to be big news.

The stock drop is all about the miss as it suggests that Tesla's high growth is starting to slow. If Tesla is starting to look more like a car company rather than a tech stock, why should it be valued so high?

As JP Morgan's Brinkman noted, "We have questioned the company’s ability to sustain this rate of growth [50% CAGR]."

The miss in deliveries does not confirm or even suggest a demand problem. Tesla increased production 47% YOY despite COVID and supply chain issues. As Tesla increases production it’s inevitable that more cars will be in transit at the end of the quarter. On top, Tesla had some logistics issues resulting in more cars being in transit. All these cars have owners waiting on the other end. That Wall Street failed to account for Tesla’s unwinding of the delivery waive in their delivery estimates should not reflect poorly on Tesla.

Clearly, in the near term and bad or perceived bad news will be used to maximum effect to drive the stock down. Meanwhile Tesla continues to execute. Eventually, stock price will reflect continued execution. Long-term holders have seen this movie before.

[mistymoney]

I think we can assume that most CEOs are assholes, this one is just very publically and vocally so and going very much against the grain of tesla's core consumer base, which naturally is much greener and forward thinking that those who don't consider the environment when making purchases. Ford and GM were supporting trump at one point, and legislation that would hinder the move to EV weren't they? So what is the alternative? Toyata was an early forerunner, and now that they got behind for whatever reason, seems they are trying to delay the move to EVs until they can catch up? pretty gross considering the climate crisis.

Source for the bolded? I spent some time searching the interwebs and didn't find much of interest.

Even if Ford and GM resisted EVs initially, they are all in now. GM is planning on investing $35 billion in EVs and Ford $50 billion, and they've secured long-term partnerships with lithium mining companies (https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-big-boys-have-a-grip-on-ev-batteries-the-industry-cannot-break-free-from-207613.html).

More on what's going on behind the scenes with lithium mining: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-29/tesla-tsla-lithium-mine-strategy-tested-by-ford-gm

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-10-28/automakers-trump-emissions-california-lawsuit

https://www.foxnews.com/video/5269458985001

[bacchi]

What is the insight here on the big price drop? The Q4 miss on #cars seemed pretty minor, but the family in a tesla off a cliff in california seems to be big news.

The stock drop is all about the miss as it suggests that Tesla's high growth is starting to slow. If Tesla is starting to look more like a car company rather than a tech stock, why should it be valued so high?

As JP Morgan's Brinkman noted, "We have questioned the company’s ability to sustain this rate of growth [50% CAGR]."

The miss in deliveries does not confirm or even suggest a demand problem.

Bolded. That's not what Brinkman stated. Tesla will continue to sell more cars but perhaps not at 50% CAGR anymore.

I guess he's saying that's a demand problem? Based on an arbitrary growth rate (why not 75%? or 30%?).

Tesla increased production 47% YOY despite COVID and supply chain issues.

Tesla increased deliveries "only" 40% from last year. Unfortunately, that's less than Musk stated earlier this year.

Elon Musk‘s electric-vehicle maker said Monday that it delivered about 1.31 million vehicles last year, up roughly 40% from 2021. The company would have needed to hand over more than 1.4 million vehicles to meet its initial goal of increasing deliveries by 50% or more.

When a company gives guidance, and there's a miss, it affects the stock price. Mr Market has always worked this way.

[FINate]

I think we can assume that most CEOs are assholes, this one is just very publically and vocally so and going very much against the grain of tesla's core consumer base, which naturally is much greener and forward thinking that those who don't consider the environment when making purchases. Ford and GM were supporting trump at one point, and legislation that would hinder the move to EV weren't they? So what is the alternative? Toyata was an early forerunner, and now that they got behind for whatever reason, seems they are trying to delay the move to EVs until they can catch up? pretty gross considering the climate crisis.

Source for the bolded? I spent some time searching the interwebs and didn't find much of interest.

Even if Ford and GM resisted EVs initially, they are all in now. GM is planning on investing $35 billion in EVs and Ford $50 billion, and they've secured long-term partnerships with lithium mining companies (https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-big-boys-have-a-grip-on-ev-batteries-the-industry-cannot-break-free-from-207613.html).

More on what's going on behind the scenes with lithium mining: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-29/tesla-tsla-lithium-mine-strategy-tested-by-ford-gm

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-10-28/automakers-trump-emissions-california-lawsuit

https://www.foxnews.com/video/5269458985001

The first article isn't about EVs, but rather one state's special status to set emissions standards vs federal standards. For what it's worth, Ford later reversed its position on this: https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022/06/07/ford-sides-with-epa-and-california-in-lawsuit.html

Did you actually watch the video you linked to, because it's basically Ford talking up its investments in EVs, and this was back in 2017.

[nick663]

Admittedly I have not read the whole thread, but:

Are people who've had Tesla stock for a while continuing to hold? Tesla is one of the few individual stocks I hold, having bought around 10 years ago. I'm holding on to it for now, although it's painful to watch its continued decline (down another 14% today alone!).

I am holding and adding. I do have concerns about musk being a negative factor in product demand, I don't have concerns about the products themselves.

I think we can assume that most CEOs are assholes, this one is just very publically and vocally so and going very much against the grain of tesla's core consumer base, which naturally is much greener and forward thinking that those who don't consider the environment when making purchases. Ford and GM were supporting trump at one point, and legislation that would hinder the move to EV weren't they? So what is the alternative? Toyata was an early forerunner, and now that they got behind for whatever reason, seems they are trying to delay the move to EVs until they can catch up? pretty gross considering the climate crisis.



Buy merch from quieter assholes? that seems what some are doing....

That seems like a major mischaracterization considering the context of this discussion.  Ford/GM have worked with and hosted presidents from both sides of the aisle, as you expect from any large business in the US.  Nothing they have done was on the level of what Elon has done in the past couple months.

[mistymoney]

I think we can assume that most CEOs are assholes, this one is just very publically and vocally so and going very much against the grain of tesla's core consumer base, which naturally is much greener and forward thinking that those who don't consider the environment when making purchases. Ford and GM were supporting trump at one point, and legislation that would hinder the move to EV weren't they? So what is the alternative? Toyata was an early forerunner, and now that they got behind for whatever reason, seems they are trying to delay the move to EVs until they can catch up? pretty gross considering the climate crisis.

Source for the bolded? I spent some time searching the interwebs and didn't find much of interest.

Even if Ford and GM resisted EVs initially, they are all in now. GM is planning on investing $35 billion in EVs and Ford $50 billion, and they've secured long-term partnerships with lithium mining companies (https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-big-boys-have-a-grip-on-ev-batteries-the-industry-cannot-break-free-from-207613.html).

More on what's going on behind the scenes with lithium mining: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-29/tesla-tsla-lithium-mine-strategy-tested-by-ford-gm

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-10-28/automakers-trump-emissions-california-lawsuit

https://www.foxnews.com/video/5269458985001

The first article isn't about EVs, but rather one state's special status to set emissions standards vs federal standards. For what it's worth, Ford later reversed its position on this: https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022/06/07/ford-sides-with-epa-and-california-in-lawsuit.html

Did you actually watch the video you linked to, because it's basically Ford talking up its investments in EVs, and this was back in 2017.

I don't even know what your going for here. My original sentence that you requested support for (and later said didn't matter anyway, so why keep hammering this into the ground?) regarded historic support for trump and attempts to delaying stricter emissions standards. I did include the "at some point" in the original statement so whether they have changed their tune by now is irrelevant and of course they're all on the bandwagon now. The point was about CEOs being self serving assholes. Musk is an asshole, but at least he's an 100% EV asshole.

If people think another CEO isn't an asshole - 99% chance they just haven't looked into it. To reiterate - Musk is a loud asshole, the others are quiet assholes. If you wanna prove one of these CEO is not asshole, ok?

[FINate]

I think we can assume that most CEOs are assholes, this one is just very publically and vocally so and going very much against the grain of tesla's core consumer base, which naturally is much greener and forward thinking that those who don't consider the environment when making purchases. Ford and GM were supporting trump at one point, and legislation that would hinder the move to EV weren't they? So what is the alternative? Toyata was an early forerunner, and now that they got behind for whatever reason, seems they are trying to delay the move to EVs until they can catch up? pretty gross considering the climate crisis.

Source for the bolded? I spent some time searching the interwebs and didn't find much of interest.

Even if Ford and GM resisted EVs initially, they are all in now. GM is planning on investing $35 billion in EVs and Ford $50 billion, and they've secured long-term partnerships with lithium mining companies (https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-big-boys-have-a-grip-on-ev-batteries-the-industry-cannot-break-free-from-207613.html).

More on what's going on behind the scenes with lithium mining: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-29/tesla-tsla-lithium-mine-strategy-tested-by-ford-gm

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-10-28/automakers-trump-emissions-california-lawsuit

https://www.foxnews.com/video/5269458985001

The first article isn't about EVs, but rather one state's special status to set emissions standards vs federal standards. For what it's worth, Ford later reversed its position on this: https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022/06/07/ford-sides-with-epa-and-california-in-lawsuit.html

Did you actually watch the video you linked to, because it's basically Ford talking up its investments in EVs, and this was back in 2017.

I don't even know what your going for here. My original sentence that you requested support for (and later said didn't matter anyway, so why keep hammering this into the ground?) regarded historic support for trump and attempts to delaying stricter emissions standards. I did include the "at some point" in the original statement so whether they have changed their tune by now is irrelevant and of course they're all on the bandwagon now. The point was about CEOs being self serving assholes. Musk is an asshole, but at least he's an 100% EV asshole.

If people think another CEO isn't an asshole - 99% chance they just haven't looked into it. To reiterate - Musk is a loud asshole, the others are quiet assholes. If you wanna prove one of these CEO is not asshole, ok?

Watch the video, it's a master class in PR. The Fox News guy repeatedly tries to get the Ford spokesperson to give Trump glowing praise, yet he carefully navigates a neutral position while staying focused on the positive. The closest he comes is expressing support for Trump's economic and regulatory goals. This is pretty standard stuff for corps dealing with presidential administrations. And, again, the Ford guy leads with emphasizing their investment in EVs. Regarding this discussion and your point, this video is not a good example of Ford supporting Trump.

What difference does it make if Ford or other automakers were previously wary of EVs but have change their minds and now are all in? It's a good thing when a company can admit an error and correct course, Elon should learn from their example. Established automakers are now committed to EVs, which is great progress and great for the environment, yet some folks don't want to let them move on from positions they held 5+ years ago, which in Ford's case happened under a different CEO. Honestly I don't get it

Nor do I accept that all CEOs are self serving assholes, a false equivalence fallacy being used to justify Musk's actions. CEOs should be judged on the merits of their individual behavior. Ideally, CEOs aren't making horrible statements in private (if nothing else, this stuff often becomes public), but it's far worse when a CEO makes such statements in public.

[mistymoney]

I think we can assume that most CEOs are assholes, this one is just very publically and vocally so and going very much against the grain of tesla's core consumer base, which naturally is much greener and forward thinking that those who don't consider the environment when making purchases. Ford and GM were supporting trump at one point, and legislation that would hinder the move to EV weren't they? So what is the alternative? Toyata was an early forerunner, and now that they got behind for whatever reason, seems they are trying to delay the move to EVs until they can catch up? pretty gross considering the climate crisis.

Source for the bolded? I spent some time searching the interwebs and didn't find much of interest.

Even if Ford and GM resisted EVs initially, they are all in now. GM is planning on investing $35 billion in EVs and Ford $50 billion, and they've secured long-term partnerships with lithium mining companies (https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-big-boys-have-a-grip-on-ev-batteries-the-industry-cannot-break-free-from-207613.html).

More on what's going on behind the scenes with lithium mining: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-29/tesla-tsla-lithium-mine-strategy-tested-by-ford-gm

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-10-28/automakers-trump-emissions-california-lawsuit

https://www.foxnews.com/video/5269458985001

The first article isn't about EVs, but rather one state's special status to set emissions standards vs federal standards. For what it's worth, Ford later reversed its position on this: https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022/06/07/ford-sides-with-epa-and-california-in-lawsuit.html

Did you actually watch the video you linked to, because it's basically Ford talking up its investments in EVs, and this was back in 2017.

I don't even know what your going for here. My original sentence that you requested support for (and later said didn't matter anyway, so why keep hammering this into the ground?) regarded historic support for trump and attempts to delaying stricter emissions standards. I did include the "at some point" in the original statement so whether they have changed their tune by now is irrelevant and of course they're all on the bandwagon now. The point was about CEOs being self serving assholes. Musk is an asshole, but at least he's an 100% EV asshole.

If people think another CEO isn't an asshole - 99% chance they just haven't looked into it. To reiterate - Musk is a loud asshole, the others are quiet assholes. If you wanna prove one of these CEO is not asshole, ok?

Watch the video, it's a master class in PR. The Fox News guy repeatedly tries to get the Ford spokesperson to give Trump glowing praise, yet he carefully navigates a neutral position while staying focused on the positive. The closest he comes is expressing support for Trump's economic and regulatory goals. This is pretty standard stuff for corps dealing with presidential administrations. And, again, the Ford guy leads with emphasizing their investment in EVs. Regarding this discussion and your point, this video is not a good example of Ford supporting Trump.

What difference does it make if Ford or other automakers were previously wary of EVs but have change their minds and now are all in? It's a good thing when a company can admit an error and correct course, Elon should learn from their example. Established automakers are now committed to EVs, which is great progress and great for the environment, yet some folks don't want to let them move on from positions they held 5+ years ago, which in Ford's case happened under a different CEO. Honestly I don't get it

Nor do I accept that all CEOs are self serving assholes, a false equivalence fallacy being used to justify Musk's actions. CEOs should be judged on the merits of their individual behavior. Ideally, CEOs aren't making horrible statements in private (if nothing else, this stuff often becomes public), but it's far worse when a CEO makes such statements in public.

I'm not justifying shit. If someone is going to change their car purchase plans due to musk's tweets - hey good for them. What company will they buy from instead, and why is that company bettter at delivering what they want in a car and supporting that buyers' ideals than tesla? And how are they investigating that?

And how are people thinking about a company vs and individual person and what those entities are separately or jointly bring to the table for that person?

elon's an asshole so I'm going to buy a ford mach-e. So - you're supporting a company selling more ICE vehicles than EVs. They'll be up to 40% EV by 2030........Because musk has verbal diarrhea on twitter. ok. good for you? have fun with it?

[FINate]

I'm not justifying shit. If someone is going to change their car purchase plans due to musk's tweets - hey good for them. What company will they buy from instead, and why is that company bettter at delivering what they want in a car and supporting that buyers' ideals than tesla? And how are they investigating that?

And how are people thinking about a company vs and individual person and what those entities are separately or jointly bring to the table for that person?

elon's an asshole so I'm going to buy a ford mach-e. So - you're supporting a company selling more ICE vehicles than EVs. They'll be up to 40% EV by 2030........Because musk has verbal diarrhea on twitter. ok. good for you? have fun with it?

Take a look at the Top Electric Vehicle ratings on sites like Motortrend, USNews, Edmonds, KBB, Car and Driver, etc. The competitive landscape has shifted dramatically in the past 1-2 years. Lots of great vehicles to choose from: Tesla, VW, BMW, Mercedes, Ford, GM, Kia, Hyundai, Porsche, Rivian, Lucid, Volvo. Not everyone likes the Tesla style or brand, including the association with Musk and his recent antics. Every brand has a different identity and appeals to a certain market segment.

I'm not in the market for a vehicle for the next few years, but when I buy my EV I don't feel a moral obligation to buy from an EV-only company. An EV takes an ICE engine off the road and reduces GHG emissions regardless of who makes it or what other vehicles they manufacture. Buying an EV from Ford or GM or whoever also makes ICE vehicles encourages them to shift more of their production to EVs.

[vand]

Tesla plunges over the cliff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF0gnnMgPW8

[GilesMM]

I am holding and adding. I do have concerns about musk being a negative factor in product demand, I don't have concerns about the products themselves.

...

The CEO factor here is compounded here because a) Tesla buyers tend to be quite liberal, left-coast types who are politically astute and read the news and b) the Tesla CEO has not only acted mentally unhinged recently has also taken on some very vocal right-wing views (about Trump, Ukraine, etc).  People are not only declining to buy new Teslas but in fact selling their used ones out of shame.  The Musk brand is becoming very politicized (unlike other car bands) and politicized in opposition to it's historical customers.

[ColoradoTribe]

I think it depends on where the FSD goes. If Tesla can move freight without drivers in 5-10 years? Kind of crazy to think of but I think that is where they are trying to get.

FSD... and also the federal and state govt approvals for FSD approval. (Regardless of whether it's TSLA, Ford, GMC, etc.) And how the auto insurance industry could be impacted by FSD - if the car's software is driving then is the driver still liable? I have often wondered if/to what extent the auto insurance industry would lobby against FSD.

Fair question on liability. In general, I think insurance companies are going to favor FSD. Tesla’s millions of miles of FSD data confirm a sharp decrease in the number of accidents per mile driven versus human drivers. It’s not that FSD is ready to be autonomous or will ever be perfect. It’s more that FSD will never drive drunk, distracted, or tired. FSD is already better than many elderly and new/young drivers. FSD is such a potential huge savings for insurance companies that I could see them adopting a no fault model for every accident involving two vehicles where both vehicles had FSD engaged. They’d still be coming out way ahead even if they paid half the damages for every accident that occurred with FSD. No one is going to fight hard against a technology once it's common knowledge how many lives are going to be saved.

[ColoradoTribe]

What is the insight here on the big price drop? The Q4 miss on #cars seemed pretty minor, but the family in a tesla off a cliff in california seems to be big news.

The stock drop is all about the miss as it suggests that Tesla's high growth is starting to slow. If Tesla is starting to look more like a car company rather than a tech stock, why should it be valued so high?

As JP Morgan's Brinkman noted, "We have questioned the company’s ability to sustain this rate of growth [50% CAGR]."

The miss in deliveries does not confirm or even suggest a demand problem.

Bolded. That's not what Brinkman stated. Tesla will continue to sell more cars but perhaps not at 50% CAGR anymore.

I guess he's saying that's a demand problem? Based on an arbitrary growth rate (why not 75%? or 30%?).

Tesla increased production 47% YOY despite COVID and supply chain issues.

Tesla increased deliveries "only" 40% from last year. Unfortunately, that's less than Musk stated earlier this year.

Elon Musk‘s electric-vehicle maker said Monday that it delivered about 1.31 million vehicles last year, up roughly 40% from 2021. The company would have needed to hand over more than 1.4 million vehicles to meet its initial goal of increasing deliveries by 50% or more.

When a company gives guidance, and there's a miss, it affects the stock price. Mr Market has always worked this way.

Here we go again. An analyst “questioning” forward demand is not proof of a demand problem.

Can you concede that when Musk stated more than 40% growth there may have been factors that were unknown. Perhaps he didn’t factor in a global economic downturn. Ongoing war in Europe.  Rampant COVID outbreak in China. Continued global supply chain and logistics issues. Passage of the IRA, which pushed forward demand in the US to 2023. Given all this its amazing to me that Tesla grew deliveries by 40% and production by 47% this year. If Musk had sandbagged and put out a goal of 35%, everyone would have their mind blown that Tesla beat their goal by 5% and achieved 40% YOY growth! What manufacturing-based company does that in this environment!

Lastly, and what you continue to ignore, is that the difference between the production and deliveries is not unsold inventory sitting on dealer lots. It's largely cars that already have buyers, but are in route. It represents approximately two weeks of Tesla production and in two weeks times all these cars will be delivered and in the hand of their owners.

If you want to focus on Tesla “missing” long term delivery estimates by a few percentage points and ignore 40% YOY growth I guess that’s your right. Seems rather short sighted and a poor evaluation methodology.

[ColoradoTribe]

What is the insight here on the big price drop? The Q4 miss on #cars seemed pretty minor, but the family in a tesla off a cliff in california seems to be big news.

I read the article, and 1- there is no indication that autopilot or FSD was involved, and emergency services was shocked that there was any survivor when they first saw movement, and then it turned out all family members were injured but alive. I think that is saying something about the saftey of the car?

Interested to hear others' interpretation on this.

Wishing the family the best recovery, of course. Don't mean to seem careless of them at all in discussing this event in the investment context.

But I am wondering why everything bad that happens to in a tesla is front page news with the Tesla as an emphasis. Someone in a tesla caught on camera picking their nose at main and central streets! Of course if enhanced autopilot or FSD was a factor, that I can see being quite newsworty. But so far not the case according to reports.

Although i was targeting acquiring 1-2 shares per payperiod, the PE I calculate now is about 28? So I picked up some extra today (Payday is Friday)- and lengthening my expectation on seeing an upside on tesla overall. My initial purchase of 100 shares (now 300 after the split) is down over 50%. My goal will be to buy in dribs and drabs here and there with a target of somewhere between 600-1000 shares. So will keep buying tesla as a very small portion of my regular investments until I hit the target amount, or I retire and stop accumulating, whichever comes first.

FWIW, the father drove off the cliff intentionally in an attempted suicide. Miracle all survived and testament to Tesla safety features and build quality. This exact location has claimed 30 lives in as many years from cars going off the cliff. Media loves to sensationalize every incident involving a Tesla will exaggerated or misleading reporting. Every Tesla vehicle fire is headline news even though ICE fires occur at a much higher rate.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tesla-driver-plunged-family-california-cliff-purpose-officials-say-rcna64170

You’ll notice this article attributes the children’ survival to their safety seats (even though they’re 4 and 7 years old) and were the parents also in child safety seats? Heaven forbid the Tesla vehicle get any credit for the outcome...

[mistymoney]

What is the insight here on the big price drop? The Q4 miss on #cars seemed pretty minor, but the family in a tesla off a cliff in california seems to be big news.

I read the article, and 1- there is no indication that autopilot or FSD was involved, and emergency services was shocked that there was any survivor when they first saw movement, and then it turned out all family members were injured but alive. I think that is saying something about the saftey of the car?

Interested to hear others' interpretation on this.

Wishing the family the best recovery, of course. Don't mean to seem careless of them at all in discussing this event in the investment context.

But I am wondering why everything bad that happens to in a tesla is front page news with the Tesla as an emphasis. Someone in a tesla caught on camera picking their nose at main and central streets! Of course if enhanced autopilot or FSD was a factor, that I can see being quite newsworty. But so far not the case according to reports.

Although i was targeting acquiring 1-2 shares per payperiod, the PE I calculate now is about 28? So I picked up some extra today (Payday is Friday)- and lengthening my expectation on seeing an upside on tesla overall. My initial purchase of 100 shares (now 300 after the split) is down over 50%. My goal will be to buy in dribs and drabs here and there with a target of somewhere between 600-1000 shares. So will keep buying tesla as a very small portion of my regular investments until I hit the target amount, or I retire and stop accumulating, whichever comes first.

FWIW, the father drove off the cliff intentionally in an attempted suicide. Miracle all survived and testament to Tesla safety features and build quality. This exact location has claimed 30 lives in as many years from cars going off the cliff. Media loves to sensationalize every incident involving a Tesla will sensationalized or misleading reporting. Every Tesla vehicle fire is headline news even though ICE fires occur at a much higher rate.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tesla-driver-plunged-family-california-cliff-purpose-officials-say-rcna64170

You’ll notice this article attributes the children’ survival to their safety seats (even though they’re 4 and 7 years old) and we’re the parents also in child safety seats? Heaven forbid the Tesla get any credit for the outcome...

oh my gosh, I did not see that! How terrible for the mom and children. I don't know how you live with that, that your husband/father tried to take the whole family out. Sending them good thoughts for their future healing...