Is Tesla a good investment?

[mistymoney]

I bought Tesla a couple of years back so it’s been good so far and I plan to hold it for several more years.

What would trigger you to sell? Is there a well defined plan for that or just winging it?

The reason I ask is that I see lots of TSLA holders that seem to be emotionally connected to owning that stock rather than rationally investing based on whatever factor they choose. That's a powerful market force, but it's also irrational.

by contrast, you seem emotionally connected to tesla for negative outcomes that is irrational. It's like you actively don't want tesla investors to do well off their investment in it.

[Paper Chaser]

I bought Tesla a couple of years back so it’s been good so far and I plan to hold it for several more years.

What would trigger you to sell? Is there a well defined plan for that or just winging it?

The reason I ask is that I see lots of TSLA holders that seem to be emotionally connected to owning that stock rather than rationally investing based on whatever factor they choose. That's a powerful market force, but it's also irrational.

by contrast, you seem emotionally connected to tesla for negative outcomes that is irrational. It's like you actively don't want tesla investors to do well off their investment in it.

Just trying to balance out some of what I see as irrational exuberance. Tesla the company has surprised me with their performance over the last 3-4 years. I once doubted their long term viability as a company, and I no longer do. That doesn't mean that I think their stock price is justified, or that everything that they do is going to lead to even higher valuations.

I don't hold TSLA stock outside of whatever is in the indexes that I own. I'm not some "short" that wants to see the stock fail, and I'm not anti-EV either. I say that to indicate that I don't particularly care one way or the other about the returns that specific TSLA investors get. A lot of very rabid TSLA supporters in this thread and elsewhere have little or no auto industry experience, and it shows in their posts. I work in the industry, and try to share some perspectives that I think may be helpful to anybody holding the stock to at least consider. I'm no prophet or soothesayer, but being honest about potential hurdles, and difficulties seems like something that a rational investor might want. Hearing nothing but "Rah rah" yes men gets you screwed eventually. You certainly don't have to act on my opinions. I'm just sharing to try and provide some more balanced perspective.

[mistymoney]

I bought Tesla a couple of years back so it’s been good so far and I plan to hold it for several more years.

What would trigger you to sell? Is there a well defined plan for that or just winging it?

The reason I ask is that I see lots of TSLA holders that seem to be emotionally connected to owning that stock rather than rationally investing based on whatever factor they choose. That's a powerful market force, but it's also irrational.

by contrast, you seem emotionally connected to tesla for negative outcomes that is irrational. It's like you actively don't want tesla investors to do well off their investment in it.

Just trying to balance out some of what I see as irrational exuberance. Tesla the company has surprised me with their performance over the last 3-4 years. I once doubted their long term viability as a company, and I no longer do. That doesn't mean that I think their stock price is justified, or that everything that they do is going to lead to even higher valuations.

I don't hold TSLA stock outside of whatever is in the indexes that I own. I don't particularly care one way or the other about the returns that specific TSLA investors get. A lot of very rabid TSLA supporters in this thread and elsewhere have little or no auto industry experience, and it shows in their posts. I work in the industry, and try to share some perspectives that I think may be helpful to anybody holding the stock to at least consider. I'm no prophet or soothesayer, but being honest about potential hurdles, and difficulties seems like something that a rational investor might want. Hearing nothing but "Rah rah" yes men gets you screwed eventually. You certainly don't have to act on my opinions. I'm just sharing to try and provide some more balanced perspective.

That seems reasonable. I don't think I'm overly "rah rah" but I do see them as being much more than a car manufacturer and so the lining up of market caps on only that dimension seems very short sighted.

Even completely discounting my beloved Rosie!

https://youtu.be/1pphyvgd7-k

[Viking Thor]

I bought Tesla a couple of years back so it’s been good so far and I plan to hold it for several more years.

What would trigger you to sell? Is there a well defined plan for that or just winging it?

The reason I ask is that I see lots of TSLA holders that seem to be emotionally connected to owning that stock rather than rationally investing based on whatever factor they choose. That's a powerful market force, but it's also irrational.

My tentative plan is to hold it until I retire in roughly 4 or five years, and then sell it in a tax efficient manner, probably spread over a couple years. It is less than 5% of my investments, but a much bigger proportion than that in terms of non-retirement fund investments. So it’s an important chunk of my time bridge to get access to the retirement funds.

right now if I sold, I would have to pay roughly 20% of the sales price in taxes. If selling in retirement, my plan would be to do so in such a way (managing yearly income levels) that it’s tax free. Of course, I always retain the option of selling it earlier, but I would have to be convinced that it’s over priced by at least 20%. I do keep an eye on the stock but I’m not a believer in market timing and for example if something bad happens the price would probably go down before I could take advantage of that info.

So for me, it’s a subjective analysis, but I also err in terms of thinking that things are generally priced correctly, hence, most of my holdings are in index funds. But I have made a couple of small growth bets.

Probably the scenario where I would be most likely to sell and take the tax hit would be a very large run up in price and I would have to evaluate how sustainable I think it is.

[Paper Chaser]

I bought Tesla a couple of years back so it’s been good so far and I plan to hold it for several more years.

What would trigger you to sell? Is there a well defined plan for that or just winging it?

The reason I ask is that I see lots of TSLA holders that seem to be emotionally connected to owning that stock rather than rationally investing based on whatever factor they choose. That's a powerful market force, but it's also irrational.

by contrast, you seem emotionally connected to tesla for negative outcomes that is irrational. It's like you actively don't want tesla investors to do well off their investment in it.

Just trying to balance out some of what I see as irrational exuberance. Tesla the company has surprised me with their performance over the last 3-4 years. I once doubted their long term viability as a company, and I no longer do. That doesn't mean that I think their stock price is justified, or that everything that they do is going to lead to even higher valuations.

I don't hold TSLA stock outside of whatever is in the indexes that I own. I don't particularly care one way or the other about the returns that specific TSLA investors get. A lot of very rabid TSLA supporters in this thread and elsewhere have little or no auto industry experience, and it shows in their posts. I work in the industry, and try to share some perspectives that I think may be helpful to anybody holding the stock to at least consider. I'm no prophet or soothesayer, but being honest about potential hurdles, and difficulties seems like something that a rational investor might want. Hearing nothing but "Rah rah" yes men gets you screwed eventually. You certainly don't have to act on my opinions. I'm just sharing to try and provide some more balanced perspective.

That seems reasonable. I don't think I'm overly "rah rah" but I do see them as being much more than a car manufacturer and so the lining up of market caps on only that dimension seems very short sighted.

Even completely discounting my beloved Rosie!

https://youtu.be/1pphyvgd7-k

In Q1 of 2022, the company had $18.75B in revenue. Automotive revenue (including credits) was $16.86B of that total.
The same quarter had total gross profit of $5.46B with automotive profit coming in at $5.54B.

When a hair under 90% of your revenue, and 101% of your profit comes from cars, I think it's fair to call you a car company.

https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/IOSHZZ_TSLA_Q1_2022_Update_G9MOZE.pdf?xseo=&response-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3D%22TSLA-Q1-2022-Update.pdf%22

[StashingAway]

One thing that is holding me to tesla has been the company's environmental focus. Other companies are jumping on the EV band wagon to serve changing consumer preferences, whereas tesla created those preferences for a higher good. Also the integration of tesla roof, powerwall, and homecharging seem the best way for individual consumers to significantly lower their own footprint. These are critical aspects of the company for me.

I just read back through this a bit and for me the Tesla environmental focus is more marketing than substance. This is taken from a bird's eye view of the company. On ground level I'm sure there are plenty of dedicated environmentalists, and compared to other vehicle companies they might have a leg up. EVs in general are better than ICEs, but their entire business model relies on consumerism to fluorish. Mine more lithium for more batteries, make more roads for cars (and deter public transit options such as trains in the process), etc. 

Again, Elon is a claimed "first principles" thinker, and as such he isn't doing much in terms of reducing consumption, which is much better for the environment than switching consumption (a first-principled approach). He is no where near some of the more environmentally focused companies, such as the currently popular Pategonia, or those working in gov't to pass regulations to allow for more dense housing, etc.

He wants you in a mansion, driving lots of Teslas and getting lazy while doing so. 

[Jeferson]

I hope you have done this on the date you posted this question (2018). I started thinking about some Tesla stocks last year, but it felt like it was too late so I skipped it.

[ChpBstrd]

I hope you have done this on the date you posted this question (2018). I started thinking about some Tesla stocks last year, but it felt like it was too late so I skipped it.

It was too late, lol. Good call staying out.

[mistymoney]

was reading an articule about musk selling perfume his twitter followers to help pay for twitter, but the article noted that he'll have to sell tesla shares if he has to buy twitter.....

and the price is kind of down, more so than the market of late.

poor guy!

[TomTX]

I think from an investment standpoint, the reason that market share might be a concern is that TSLA currently has $700 billion market cap, which is more than the top 10 largest auto makers combined, while moving a very small percentage of units relative to those same companies (their volume is currently ~10% of what Toyota or VW do in a year.) So the stock seems like it's priced as if they'll continue market domination. Erosion of market share seems to fly in the face of that valuation, which could increase downside risk, and reduce upside for a prospective investor. IF you're already holding, then it may be less of a concern, but downside risk is always something to consider.

Unit market share is far from the only metric - especially when Tesla ASP is something like $60k with a 30% gross margin, compared to $5k for some high volume Chinese models.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56178802

One might compare this with the cell phone market. Last I checked, Apple was a relatively small portion of the unit share compared to Android. However, Apple had the majority of cell phone hardware profits.

[Paper Chaser]

I think from an investment standpoint, the reason that market share might be a concern is that TSLA currently has $700 billion market cap, which is more than the top 10 largest auto makers combined, while moving a very small percentage of units relative to those same companies (their volume is currently ~10% of what Toyota or VW do in a year.) So the stock seems like it's priced as if they'll continue market domination. Erosion of market share seems to fly in the face of that valuation, which could increase downside risk, and reduce upside for a prospective investor. IF you're already holding, then it may be less of a concern, but downside risk is always something to consider.

Unit market share is far from the only metric - especially when Tesla ASP is something like $60k with a 30% gross margin, compared to $5k for some high volume Chinese models.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56178802

One might compare this with the cell phone market. Last I checked, Apple was a relatively small portion of the unit share compared to Android. However, Apple had the majority of cell phone hardware profits.

Apple has been the first or second largest market share in the smart phone business for a long time


So they're consistently 1a or 1b in market share. I'll take your word on the profitability claims relative to the competition. With those conditions (significant market share and higher profitability) AAPL is currently $142/share while the closest competition (Samsung) is priced equivalent to $39.54/share. So with a very large market share, and higher profitability, they're priced at 4 times their biggest competitor.

TSLA is currently $219 while VW shares are $12.50. So if the future of EVs will be like smart phones, with TSLA being the AAPL equivalent, we should expect TSLA to be roughly 4 times what VW's stock is. To me, that makes TSLA seem overpriced and not a great investment at this point. If anything, VW (and other legacy automakers) looks like it has more potential for upside. That doesn't mean that TSLA hasn't been a good investment at times in the past. Just saying that it doesn't seem to me like there's a bunch of room for growth at this point. My crystal ball is hazy, and my eyes suck.

[soulpatchmike]

I think from an investment standpoint, the reason that market share might be a concern is that TSLA currently has $700 billion market cap, which is more than the top 10 largest auto makers combined, while moving a very small percentage of units relative to those same companies (their volume is currently ~10% of what Toyota or VW do in a year.) So the stock seems like it's priced as if they'll continue market domination. Erosion of market share seems to fly in the face of that valuation, which could increase downside risk, and reduce upside for a prospective investor. IF you're already holding, then it may be less of a concern, but downside risk is always something to consider.

Unit market share is far from the only metric - especially when Tesla ASP is something like $60k with a 30% gross margin, compared to $5k for some high volume Chinese models.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56178802

One might compare this with the cell phone market. Last I checked, Apple was a relatively small portion of the unit share compared to Android. However, Apple had the majority of cell phone hardware profits.

Apple has been the first or second largest market share in the smart phone business for a long time


So they're consistently 1a or 1b in market share. I'll take your word on the profitability claims relative to the competition. With those conditions (significant market share and higher profitability) AAPL is currently $142/share while the closest competition (Samsung) is priced equivalent to $39.54/share. So with a very large market share, and higher profitability, they're priced at 4 times their biggest competitor.

TSLA is currently $219 while VW shares are $12.50. So if the future of EVs will be like smart phones, with TSLA being the AAPL equivalent, we should expect TSLA to be roughly 4 times what VW's stock is. To me, that makes TSLA seem overpriced and not a great investment at this point. If anything, VW (and other legacy automakers) looks like it has more potential for upside. That doesn't mean that TSLA hasn't been a good investment at times in the past. Just saying that it doesn't seem to me like there's a bunch of room for growth at this point. My crystal ball is hazy, and my eyes suck.

I can't tell if this is a troll or serious.  Can you enlighten us as to how you use the per-share price to determine the fair value of a company?  Is comparing the share price against other companies in the same industry the extent of it?

[theoverlook]

Yeah, you made a serious error in math there. Per share price doesn't matter when discussing value of a company - total market cap does. Samsung is about $266 billion whereas Apple is about $2.3 trillion, so about 10x Samsung. But! Samsung makes everything from refrigerators to TVs to integrated circuits. They even make displays for Apple. It's hard to compare company value "apples to apples" when talking about a company as diversified as Samsung versus a more focused company like Apple.

Tesla VS VW is also about a 10x difference in valuation. Tesla is $691b and VW is $77b. So pretty comparable to Apple vs Samsung in value. So does that seem fair to you? I don't have an opinion either way, I'm an indexer.

[Paper Chaser]

I think from an investment standpoint, the reason that market share might be a concern is that TSLA currently has $700 billion market cap, which is more than the top 10 largest auto makers combined, while moving a very small percentage of units relative to those same companies (their volume is currently ~10% of what Toyota or VW do in a year.) So the stock seems like it's priced as if they'll continue market domination. Erosion of market share seems to fly in the face of that valuation, which could increase downside risk, and reduce upside for a prospective investor. IF you're already holding, then it may be less of a concern, but downside risk is always something to consider.

Unit market share is far from the only metric - especially when Tesla ASP is something like $60k with a 30% gross margin, compared to $5k for some high volume Chinese models.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56178802

One might compare this with the cell phone market. Last I checked, Apple was a relatively small portion of the unit share compared to Android. However, Apple had the majority of cell phone hardware profits.

Apple has been the first or second largest market share in the smart phone business for a long time


So they're consistently 1a or 1b in market share. I'll take your word on the profitability claims relative to the competition. With those conditions (significant market share and higher profitability) AAPL is currently $142/share while the closest competition (Samsung) is priced equivalent to $39.54/share. So with a very large market share, and higher profitability, they're priced at 4 times their biggest competitor.

TSLA is currently $219 while VW shares are $12.50. So if the future of EVs will be like smart phones, with TSLA being the AAPL equivalent, we should expect TSLA to be roughly 4 times what VW's stock is. To me, that makes TSLA seem overpriced and not a great investment at this point. If anything, VW (and other legacy automakers) looks like it has more potential for upside. That doesn't mean that TSLA hasn't been a good investment at times in the past. Just saying that it doesn't seem to me like there's a bunch of room for growth at this point. My crystal ball is hazy, and my eyes suck.

I can't tell if this is a troll or serious.  Can you enlighten us as to how you use the per-share price to determine the fair value of a company?  Is comparing the share price against other companies in the same industry the extent of it?

I'm not necessarily concerned about the fair value of the company because investors can be irrational. I'm concerned about the potential gains a new investment might see. For that, I do think that comparing share prices is a relevant metric. Obviously, each company has different factors that impact profitability, but as Tesla grows and other OEMs adjust their offerings and strategies, there's an increasing amount of similarity between them. So if they're increasingly similar, I'd likely choose to invest new money into the company that seems to have more upside potential.
I'm not predicting that TSLA shares will be worthless, or that other OEMs stock prices will rise to the same level that TSLA currently enjoys. I just think that over the next 5-10 years the legacy OEMs have more upside than TSLA does for money that would be invested now. If the business model for Tesla changes, and they become more of an energy company or something then that could alter the calculus a ton. But for what is currently a car company I don't see much room for their stock to improve relative to some of their peers.

[achvfi]

https://electrek.co/2022/10/18/us-electric-vehicle-sales-by-maker-and-ev-model-through-q3-2022/

Quarter by quarter here how quickly EV market share is changing...

"EV pioneer Tesla remains the market leader, with 64% of the share, down from 66% in Q2 and 75% in Q1. The declining share was inevitable as legacy automakers look to catch Tesla’s success, racing to fill the growing demand for electric vehicles."

[ATtiny85]

I'm not necessarily concerned about the fair value of the company because investors can be irrational. I'm concerned about the potential gains a new investment might see. For that, I do think that comparing share prices is a relevant metric. Obviously, each company has different factors that impact profitability, but as Tesla grows and other OEMs adjust their offerings and strategies, there's an increasing amount of similarity between them. So if they're increasingly similar, I'd likely choose to invest new money into the company that seems to have more upside potential.

How so? Still very lost here. Is a 10% gain in share price different if a $10,000 investment buys 100 or 250 shares? (No is the answer)

[Paper Chaser]

I'm not necessarily concerned about the fair value of the company because investors can be irrational. I'm concerned about the potential gains a new investment might see. For that, I do think that comparing share prices is a relevant metric. Obviously, each company has different factors that impact profitability, but as Tesla grows and other OEMs adjust their offerings and strategies, there's an increasing amount of similarity between them. So if they're increasingly similar, I'd likely choose to invest new money into the company that seems to have more upside potential.

How so? Still very lost here. Is a 10% gain in share price different if a $10,000 investment buys 100 or 250 shares? (No is the answer)

TSLA has an outsized share price compared to industry peers. However, this year TSLA (-44.9% YTD) has seen a very comparable drop in price this year to GM (-45.2%), Ford (-44.6%), etc which tells me the market sees them as a car company at this point. So, I see TSLA's current high price as an outlier for a car company. I'm not confident betting on any outlier to continue to outpace their peers over a very long time frame. Especially as that outlier is losing market share and seeing viable competition (not just in number but in quality) enter the market at a break neck pace. I don't see how they're likely to maintain that enormous spread.

So if I were going to invest $10k into an individual car company's stock (I'm not. This is all just theory for me.) TSLA would not be my choice. My money would go towards what I consider to be a more reasonably priced stock closer to the industry average in price. Likely a legacy OEM rather than an upstart EV automaker such as Rivian or Lucid, but I might be convinced that the cheap upstarts could have more upside if it was just play money.

[talltexan]

Neither Ford nor GM have their largest share holder on the hook for buying a $15 billion dollar company for $44 billion via debt, though.

[Paper Chaser]

Neither Ford nor GM have their largest share holder on the hook for buying a $15 billion dollar company for $44 billion via debt, though.

So your theory is that TSLA has just coincidentally dropped an amount equal to Ford and GM because of some combination of auto market forces + Elon's outside interests? Unless Tesla funds are to be used for that sale, I'm not sure why that's relevant to TSLA's share price. That all seems like a stretch to me when there's a much more simple explanation.

If anything that Elon does outside of Tesla has drastic impacts on the price of TSLA, isn't that basically admitting that the current price is a bit irrational and may not be entirely based on something tangible? How long might that continue? Would you want to put new money into that stock?

[TomTX]

https://electrek.co/2022/10/18/us-electric-vehicle-sales-by-maker-and-ev-model-through-q3-2022/

Quarter by quarter here how quickly EV market share is changing...

"EV pioneer Tesla remains the market leader, with 64% of the share, down from 66% in Q2 and 75% in Q1. The declining share was inevitable as legacy automakers look to catch Tesla’s success, racing to fill the growing demand for electric vehicles."

Eh, I wouldn't read too much into the quarter-by-quarter numbers. It's great for the world that the other manufacturers are ramping - but keep in mind that half of the Tesla factories are in startup mode with output around 1k/week. Giga Shanghai is at about 20k/week by now - and still ramping. Both Austin and Berlin are supposed to at least equal Shanghai once ramped.

[PDXTabs]

WSJ: Tesla’s Valuation Doesn’t Add Up Today, Never Mind $4.4 Trillion Tomorrow

[TomTX]

WSJ: Tesla’s Valuation Doesn’t Add Up Today, Never Mind $4.4 Trillion Tomorrow

Yes, WSJ has been consistently negative about Tesla for over a decade.

Tesla's 3Q2022 EPS was more than 10% above analyst expectations. Despite revenue being slightly lower than expected. Not surprised WSJ chose to trumpet about the revenue (nevermind that they were all about Tesla not making profits not that long ago...)

[Niceday]

WSJ: Tesla’s Valuation Doesn’t Add Up Today, Never Mind $4.4 Trillion Tomorrow

Yes, WSJ has been consistently negative about Tesla for over a decade.

Tesla's 3Q2022 EPS was more than 10% above analyst expectations. Despite revenue being slightly lower than expected. Not surprised WSJ chose to trumpet about the revenue (nevermind that they were all about Tesla not making profits not that long ago...)

Right, quite a few publications have been writing negative articles on tesla for years. Just because they are name brand publications doesn't make them authoritative on all subjects. Readers who listened to them to stay out of TSLA have lost huge opportunities and yet no one has called them out on it. For people who have been wrong about Tesla for years, don't they go through some kind of self reflection to see why they've been wrong in order to improve? What makes them think they're still right after being wrong for so many years? The market can mis-price securities short term but it's rarely wrong long term.

[JohnnyZ]

TSLA has an outsized share price compared to industry peers. However, this year TSLA (-44.9% YTD) has seen a very comparable drop in price this year to GM (-45.2%), Ford (-44.6%), etc which tells me the market sees them as a car company at this point. So, I see TSLA's current high price as an outlier for a car company.

That's such a strange way to label companies. Currently Alibaba is down ~39.5% YTD compared to Tesla's -41.4%. Is it a car company?

Genuine question (because I think the answer might help understand some assertions made here): do you believe all companies have the same number of outstanding shares?

[mistymoney]

I think from an investment standpoint, the reason that market share might be a concern is that TSLA currently has $700 billion market cap, which is more than the top 10 largest auto makers combined, while moving a very small percentage of units relative to those same companies (their volume is currently ~10% of what Toyota or VW do in a year.) So the stock seems like it's priced as if they'll continue market domination. Erosion of market share seems to fly in the face of that valuation, which could increase downside risk, and reduce upside for a prospective investor. IF you're already holding, then it may be less of a concern, but downside risk is always something to consider.

Unit market share is far from the only metric - especially when Tesla ASP is something like $60k with a 30% gross margin, compared to $5k for some high volume Chinese models.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56178802

One might compare this with the cell phone market. Last I checked, Apple was a relatively small portion of the unit share compared to Android. However, Apple had the majority of cell phone hardware profits.

Apple has been the first or second largest market share in the smart phone business for a long time


So they're consistently 1a or 1b in market share. I'll take your word on the profitability claims relative to the competition. With those conditions (significant market share and higher profitability) AAPL is currently $142/share while the closest competition (Samsung) is priced equivalent to $39.54/share. So with a very large market share, and higher profitability, they're priced at 4 times their biggest competitor.

TSLA is currently $219 while VW shares are $12.50. So if the future of EVs will be like smart phones, with TSLA being the AAPL equivalent, we should expect TSLA to be roughly 4 times what VW's stock is. To me, that makes TSLA seem overpriced and not a great investment at this point. If anything, VW (and other legacy automakers) looks like it has more potential for upside. That doesn't mean that TSLA hasn't been a good investment at times in the past. Just saying that it doesn't seem to me like there's a bunch of room for growth at this point. My crystal ball is hazy, and my eyes suck.

I can't tell if this is a troll or serious.  Can you enlighten us as to how you use the per-share price to determine the fair value of a company?  Is comparing the share price against other companies in the same industry the extent of it?

I'm not necessarily concerned about the fair value of the company because investors can be irrational. I'm concerned about the potential gains a new investment might see. For that, I do think that comparing share prices is a relevant metric. Obviously, each company has different factors that impact profitability, but as Tesla grows and other OEMs adjust their offerings and strategies, there's an increasing amount of similarity between them. So if they're increasingly similar, I'd likely choose to invest new money into the company that seems to have more upside potential.
I'm not predicting that TSLA shares will be worthless, or that other OEMs stock prices will rise to the same level that TSLA currently enjoys. I just think that over the next 5-10 years the legacy OEMs have more upside than TSLA does for money that would be invested now. If the business model for Tesla changes, and they become more of an energy company or something then that could alter the calculus a ton. But for what is currently a car company I don't see much room for their stock to improve relative to some of their peers.

so basically - you squeezed this caveate in here so that if you are wrong - you just pull this out and say "the calculus is altered!" and then you are not wrong?

So - yeah - if I'm right I'm right - but if I'm wrong - I'm still right! Because calculus is altered.

Not really compelling in the argument department. I'm sure you frequently find yourself never wrong. But it's not because you are right.

[Paper Chaser]

I think from an investment standpoint, the reason that market share might be a concern is that TSLA currently has $700 billion market cap, which is more than the top 10 largest auto makers combined, while moving a very small percentage of units relative to those same companies (their volume is currently ~10% of what Toyota or VW do in a year.) So the stock seems like it's priced as if they'll continue market domination. Erosion of market share seems to fly in the face of that valuation, which could increase downside risk, and reduce upside for a prospective investor. IF you're already holding, then it may be less of a concern, but downside risk is always something to consider.

Unit market share is far from the only metric - especially when Tesla ASP is something like $60k with a 30% gross margin, compared to $5k for some high volume Chinese models.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56178802

One might compare this with the cell phone market. Last I checked, Apple was a relatively small portion of the unit share compared to Android. However, Apple had the majority of cell phone hardware profits.

Apple has been the first or second largest market share in the smart phone business for a long time


So they're consistently 1a or 1b in market share. I'll take your word on the profitability claims relative to the competition. With those conditions (significant market share and higher profitability) AAPL is currently $142/share while the closest competition (Samsung) is priced equivalent to $39.54/share. So with a very large market share, and higher profitability, they're priced at 4 times their biggest competitor.

TSLA is currently $219 while VW shares are $12.50. So if the future of EVs will be like smart phones, with TSLA being the AAPL equivalent, we should expect TSLA to be roughly 4 times what VW's stock is. To me, that makes TSLA seem overpriced and not a great investment at this point. If anything, VW (and other legacy automakers) looks like it has more potential for upside. That doesn't mean that TSLA hasn't been a good investment at times in the past. Just saying that it doesn't seem to me like there's a bunch of room for growth at this point. My crystal ball is hazy, and my eyes suck.

I can't tell if this is a troll or serious.  Can you enlighten us as to how you use the per-share price to determine the fair value of a company?  Is comparing the share price against other companies in the same industry the extent of it?

I'm not necessarily concerned about the fair value of the company because investors can be irrational. I'm concerned about the potential gains a new investment might see. For that, I do think that comparing share prices is a relevant metric. Obviously, each company has different factors that impact profitability, but as Tesla grows and other OEMs adjust their offerings and strategies, there's an increasing amount of similarity between them. So if they're increasingly similar, I'd likely choose to invest new money into the company that seems to have more upside potential.
I'm not predicting that TSLA shares will be worthless, or that other OEMs stock prices will rise to the same level that TSLA currently enjoys. I just think that over the next 5-10 years the legacy OEMs have more upside than TSLA does for money that would be invested now. If the business model for Tesla changes, and they become more of an energy company or something then that could alter the calculus a ton. But for what is currently a car company I don't see much room for their stock to improve relative to some of their peers.

so basically - you squeezed this caveate in here so that if you are wrong - you just pull this out and say "the calculus is altered!" and then you are not wrong?

So - yeah - if I'm right I'm right - but if I'm wrong - I'm still right! Because calculus is altered.

Not really compelling in the argument department. I'm sure you frequently find yourself never wrong. But it's not because you are right.

Is it common knowledge that Tesla plans to transition their focus to something other than cars? Maybe I just missed that. Right now, they seem to be very focused on cars. If that changes (and it could) then I can see some more justification for the current share price. But if the current share price is already pricing in a massive shift in strategy that Tesla hasn't indicated is likely then that seems entirely speculative to me.

[Paper Chaser]

TSLA has an outsized share price compared to industry peers. However, this year TSLA (-44.9% YTD) has seen a very comparable drop in price this year to GM (-45.2%), Ford (-44.6%), etc which tells me the market sees them as a car company at this point. So, I see TSLA's current high price as an outlier for a car company.

That's such a strange way to label companies. Currently Alibaba is down ~39.5% YTD compared to Tesla's -41.4%. Is it a car company?

It doesn't seem that odd to me. Tesla makes and sells cars. Almost all of their revenue and profit come from making and selling cars. They're subject to many of the same market forces as other car companies and their share price has performed in line with other car companies lately.

Genuine question (because I think the answer might help understand some assertions made here): do you believe all companies have the same number of outstanding shares?

Of course not.

[mistymoney]

I think from an investment standpoint, the reason that market share might be a concern is that TSLA currently has $700 billion market cap, which is more than the top 10 largest auto makers combined, while moving a very small percentage of units relative to those same companies (their volume is currently ~10% of what Toyota or VW do in a year.) So the stock seems like it's priced as if they'll continue market domination. Erosion of market share seems to fly in the face of that valuation, which could increase downside risk, and reduce upside for a prospective investor. IF you're already holding, then it may be less of a concern, but downside risk is always something to consider.

Unit market share is far from the only metric - especially when Tesla ASP is something like $60k with a 30% gross margin, compared to $5k for some high volume Chinese models.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56178802

One might compare this with the cell phone market. Last I checked, Apple was a relatively small portion of the unit share compared to Android. However, Apple had the majority of cell phone hardware profits.

Apple has been the first or second largest market share in the smart phone business for a long time


So they're consistently 1a or 1b in market share. I'll take your word on the profitability claims relative to the competition. With those conditions (significant market share and higher profitability) AAPL is currently $142/share while the closest competition (Samsung) is priced equivalent to $39.54/share. So with a very large market share, and higher profitability, they're priced at 4 times their biggest competitor.

TSLA is currently $219 while VW shares are $12.50. So if the future of EVs will be like smart phones, with TSLA being the AAPL equivalent, we should expect TSLA to be roughly 4 times what VW's stock is. To me, that makes TSLA seem overpriced and not a great investment at this point. If anything, VW (and other legacy automakers) looks like it has more potential for upside. That doesn't mean that TSLA hasn't been a good investment at times in the past. Just saying that it doesn't seem to me like there's a bunch of room for growth at this point. My crystal ball is hazy, and my eyes suck.

I can't tell if this is a troll or serious.  Can you enlighten us as to how you use the per-share price to determine the fair value of a company?  Is comparing the share price against other companies in the same industry the extent of it?

I'm not necessarily concerned about the fair value of the company because investors can be irrational. I'm concerned about the potential gains a new investment might see. For that, I do think that comparing share prices is a relevant metric. Obviously, each company has different factors that impact profitability, but as Tesla grows and other OEMs adjust their offerings and strategies, there's an increasing amount of similarity between them. So if they're increasingly similar, I'd likely choose to invest new money into the company that seems to have more upside potential.
I'm not predicting that TSLA shares will be worthless, or that other OEMs stock prices will rise to the same level that TSLA currently enjoys. I just think that over the next 5-10 years the legacy OEMs have more upside than TSLA does for money that would be invested now. If the business model for Tesla changes, and they become more of an energy company or something then that could alter the calculus a ton. But for what is currently a car company I don't see much room for their stock to improve relative to some of their peers.

so basically - you squeezed this caveate in here so that if you are wrong - you just pull this out and say "the calculus is altered!" and then you are not wrong?

So - yeah - if I'm right I'm right - but if I'm wrong - I'm still right! Because calculus is altered.

Not really compelling in the argument department. I'm sure you frequently find yourself never wrong. But it's not because you are right.

Is it common knowledge that Tesla plans to transition their focus to something other than cars? Maybe I just missed that. Right now, they seem to be very focused on cars. If that changes (and it could) then I can see some more justification for the current share price. But if the current share price is already pricing in a massive shift in strategy that Tesla hasn't indicated is likely then that seems entirely speculative to me.

With 35,000+ Superchargers, Tesla owns and operates the largest global, fast charging network in the world. Located on major routes near convenient amenities, Superchargers keep you charged when you're away from home. Simply plug in, charge and go.

then there is the solar roof, solar panels, and powerwall.

Tesla founder Elon Musk is turning a neighborhood in Austin, Texas, into a solar-powered destination.

In a new partnership with real estate developer Dacra and alternative asset manager Brookfield Asset Management, Tesla has already begun construction on the neighborhood in Southeast Austin, The Independent reported.

Tesla has deployed new Powerpacks near Sydney, Australia, to serve as a new “community battery” for the neighborhood.

Over the last few years, Tesla’s energy storage division has been focusing on bigger projects using its Megapack product, but Powerpacks are still in play.

They have been used in mid-size commercial projects and Tesla is finding a different market for the product.

Tesla and Pacific Gas & Electric have launched a program to aggregate the storage in ratepayers’ Tesla Powerwalls to provide emergency power to California’s grid when intense heat drives up demand on the system this summer and the summer of 2023. Participating residential and other distributed battery owners will be paid $2 per kWh for exporting power to the system when supplies are crimped from 4 p.m.–9 p.m. between May 1 and October 31.

But it'll be a "surprise" when tesla starts making major money from energy, according to you.

[mistymoney]

oh, and now robots....  :D

[bacchi]

oh, and now robots....  :D

Boston Dynamics was bought by Hyundai last year. Their robots are a lot more functional than the Tesla robot but it didn't make the company worth more than $1B.

[StashingAway]

With 35,000+ Superchargers, Tesla owns and operates the largest global, fast charging network in the world. Located on major routes near convenient amenities, Superchargers keep you charged when you're away from home. Simply plug in, charge and go.

then there is the solar roof, solar panels, and powerwall.

Tesla founder Elon Musk is turning a neighborhood in Austin, Texas, into a solar-powered destination.

In a new partnership with real estate developer Dacra and alternative asset manager Brookfield Asset Management, Tesla has already begun construction on the neighborhood in Southeast Austin, The Independent reported.

Tesla has deployed new Powerpacks near Sydney, Australia, to serve as a new “community battery” for the neighborhood.

Over the last few years, Tesla’s energy storage division has been focusing on bigger projects using its Megapack product, but Powerpacks are still in play.

They have been used in mid-size commercial projects and Tesla is finding a different market for the product.

Tesla and Pacific Gas & Electric have launched a program to aggregate the storage in ratepayers’ Tesla Powerwalls to provide emergency power to California’s grid when intense heat drives up demand on the system this summer and the summer of 2023. Participating residential and other distributed battery owners will be paid $2 per kWh for exporting power to the system when supplies are crimped from 4 p.m.–9 p.m. between May 1 and October 31.

But it'll be a "surprise" when tesla starts making major money from energy, according to you.

Coming from the energy industry... these things sound good on paper, but in reality are going to be hard to scale. I know it looks like they're ramping up, and certain aspects of VTG (vehicle to grid) charging are extremely promising. But true grid scale lithium-ion battery storage to pair with solar power is a bit optimistic. The negative externalities of greenhouse gasses are in front for us to see right now. But there are lots of negative externalities with solar that are just brushed under the rug. The amount of environmental damage done from mining lithium, and social damage due to the minining conditions of the source countries, should not be underwritten. There is a reason that lithium mines are hard to open in the US- they wreak havoc on the water supply (much worse than fracking does) and the working conditions are abysmal. Not to mention the sheer amount of land needed to dedicate to solar.

Relying on a low-desnity, intermittent energy source just flies in the face of economic and national security. Most of the silicone used in solar panels is made in China, they don't work as well in certain climates, etc. 3% of the current energy in the US comes from solar. This is the easiest 3% to get. As more solar comes online, it will be harder to use it... this will become an exponential problem as to use the solar, more batteries will be needed to account for non-producing times. Right now we can just dump the excess into the grid and pretend it's a net-zero practice. Eventually, that excess will have to dump into more and more batteries... using more resources and cost and failure points.

This is a side tangent that leads to what I think is seriously under considered. If we were to instead focus all of our public PR onto nuclear power we could solve all of these problems. Nationally sourced entire power supply chain, low land usage, reliable in all climates, safer than all other power per kWh, no need for grid batteries, able to produce hydrogen and desalinate water, micro reactors to power those semi mega-chargers that the grid can't handle. Close to 20% of the current energy supply is from Nuclear, and that's plants that we built 40 years ago! Imagine what we could do if we actually built modern ones!!

Have you heard the saying that Trump is a poor man's idea of what it looks like to be a rich man? I my mind, Tesla holds a similar spot as an energy-novice's idea of what it looks like to be an energy expert. They say and look like they are the best at what they do, but most of what they do is pouring resources in the wrong direction, at least from a grid energy standpoint (I'll bite my tongue on the 8,000 steel people movers for now). 10 years ago they were ridiculed for their vision, now they are succeeding so in the public eye they generally are resilient to criticism. I hold a bit of a negative view of this in particular because I work in state and municipal net-zeron planning and it is now just assumed that entire fleets of the countries vehicles are going to be electric. No plans for actually having a grid to charge them, or supply chain/resources to make them (we still cannot get enough vehicles to the upper-middle class, much less work utility vehicles), or even vehicles with functions that are needed. It has a good chance of all crashing down and we'll be 10 years behind on projects that could have been seen earlier. I try to not be contrarian here, but it is coming from a place of concern, not anti-EV or anything.

There is another saying that comes to mind: "It is difficult to get a person to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it". Take Tesla's word on their progress with a grain of salt. Their energy division literally cannot understand otherwise; they've sunk too much cost into their commitment to batteries + solar.

[ATtiny85]

That's such a strange way to label companies. Currently Alibaba is down ~39.5% YTD compared to Tesla's -41.4%. Is it a car company?

Genuine question (because I think the answer might help understand some assertions made here): do you believe all companies have the same number of outstanding shares?

There must some weird terminology misinterpretation that we are failing to see. Maybe price is not price? Or at least share price is not share price? I can come up with no possible way that someone would think share price means anything when comparing company A to company B. Maybe we should ask what happens with a stock split?

[mistymoney]

That's such a strange way to label companies. Currently Alibaba is down ~39.5% YTD compared to Tesla's -41.4%. Is it a car company?

Genuine question (because I think the answer might help understand some assertions made here): do you believe all companies have the same number of outstanding shares?

There must some weird terminology misinterpretation that we are failing to see. Maybe price is not price? Or at least share price is not share price? I can come up with no possible way that someone would think share price means anything when comparing company A to company B. Maybe we should ask what happens with a stock split?

3 scoops of ice cream and all the trims?

[mistymoney]

With 35,000+ Superchargers, Tesla owns and operates the largest global, fast charging network in the world. Located on major routes near convenient amenities, Superchargers keep you charged when you're away from home. Simply plug in, charge and go.

then there is the solar roof, solar panels, and powerwall.

Tesla founder Elon Musk is turning a neighborhood in Austin, Texas, into a solar-powered destination.

In a new partnership with real estate developer Dacra and alternative asset manager Brookfield Asset Management, Tesla has already begun construction on the neighborhood in Southeast Austin, The Independent reported.

Tesla has deployed new Powerpacks near Sydney, Australia, to serve as a new “community battery” for the neighborhood.

Over the last few years, Tesla’s energy storage division has been focusing on bigger projects using its Megapack product, but Powerpacks are still in play.

They have been used in mid-size commercial projects and Tesla is finding a different market for the product.

Tesla and Pacific Gas & Electric have launched a program to aggregate the storage in ratepayers’ Tesla Powerwalls to provide emergency power to California’s grid when intense heat drives up demand on the system this summer and the summer of 2023. Participating residential and other distributed battery owners will be paid $2 per kWh for exporting power to the system when supplies are crimped from 4 p.m.–9 p.m. between May 1 and October 31.

But it'll be a "surprise" when tesla starts making major money from energy, according to you.

Coming from the energy industry... these things sound good on paper, but in reality are going to be hard to scale. I know it looks like they're ramping up, and certain aspects of VTG (vehicle to grid) charging are extremely promising. But true grid scale lithium-ion battery storage to pair with solar power is a bit optimistic. The negative externalities of greenhouse gasses are in front for us to see right now. But there are lots of negative externalities with solar that are just brushed under the rug. The amount of environmental damage done from mining lithium, and social damage due to the minining conditions of the source countries, should not be underwritten. There is a reason that lithium mines are hard to open in the US- they wreak havoc on the water supply (much worse than fracking does) and the working conditions are abysmal. Not to mention the sheer amount of land needed to dedicate to solar.

Relying on a low-desnity, intermittent energy source just flies in the face of economic and national security. Most of the silicone used in solar panels is made in China, they don't work as well in certain climates, etc. 3% of the current energy in the US comes from solar. This is the easiest 3% to get. As more solar comes online, it will be harder to use it... this will become an exponential problem as to use the solar, more batteries will be needed to account for non-producing times. Right now we can just dump the excess into the grid and pretend it's a net-zero practice. Eventually, that excess will have to dump into more and more batteries... using more resources and cost and failure points.

This is a side tangent that leads to what I think is seriously under considered. If we were to instead focus all of our public PR onto nuclear power we could solve all of these problems. Nationally sourced entire power supply chain, low land usage, reliable in all climates, safer than all other power per kWh, no need for grid batteries, able to produce hydrogen and desalinate water, micro reactors to power those semi mega-chargers that the grid can't handle. Close to 20% of the current energy supply is from Nuclear, and that's plants that we built 40 years ago! Imagine what we could do if we actually built modern ones!!

Have you heard the saying that Trump is a poor man's idea of what it looks like to be a rich man? I my mind, Tesla holds a similar spot as an energy-novice's idea of what it looks like to be an energy expert. They say and look like they are the best at what they do, but most of what they do is pouring resources in the wrong direction, at least from a grid energy standpoint (I'll bite my tongue on the 8,000 steel people movers for now). 10 years ago they were ridiculed for their vision, now they are succeeding so in the public eye they generally are resilient to criticism. I hold a bit of a negative view of this in particular because I work in state and municipal net-zeron planning and it is now just assumed that entire fleets of the countries vehicles are going to be electric. No plans for actually having a grid to charge them, or supply chain/resources to make them (we still cannot get enough vehicles to the upper-middle class, much less work utility vehicles), or even vehicles with functions that are needed. It has a good chance of all crashing down and we'll be 10 years behind on projects that could have been seen earlier. I try to not be contrarian here, but it is coming from a place of concern, not anti-EV or anything.

There is another saying that comes to mind: "It is difficult to get a person to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it". Take Tesla's word on their progress with a grain of salt. Their energy division literally cannot understand otherwise; they've sunk too much cost into their commitment to batteries + solar.

But I am not arguing that they will necessarily succeed at this, just that it is already part of the company, and they do have a good amount of focus in it.

the point was a poster said they are way over vlaued, but if they "become" an energy company then it's different! No, they are already doing it.

If people want to put in their bets that tesla is going to soar or slide or fall, hey - all fair, all good.

And if you wanna say - who knows what's going to happend with that maniac musk at the helm - could go anywhere. Also fair. And - a pretty good point!

But don't go making wildly definitive statements, and then subltly try to slide in a disclaimer that is already baked into their business plan. Because if tesla sinks - energy and all - then they go crowing I was right! And if tesla soars and someone says - you were wrong - and then no....look at this tiny sentence I squeazed in there so that if they do do energy piece than I'm not wrong.

I'm just calling bullshit on that. You want to make bold statements - have at it. But if you are looking to crow when you are right you better suck it up when you are wrong.

[TomTX]

Coming from the energy industry... these things sound good on paper, but in reality are going to be hard to scale. I know it looks like they're ramping up, and certain aspects of VTG (vehicle to grid) charging are extremely promising. But true grid scale lithium-ion battery storage to pair with solar power is a bit optimistic.

I suggest reviewing the projects already under development. Here's a starter from ERCOT: https://www.ercot.com/misdownload/servlets/mirDownload?doclookupId=868860006

A "mere" 63 GW for a grid which has seen an all time peak demand of ~80 GW and already has almost 2 GW of installed battery storage. Minimum of 4GWh per GW per ERCOT requirements.

Let me guess: Your energy industry experience is primarily with fossil fuels. Your parroting of fossil fuel disinformation about environmental impacts of lithium, the distraction which is nuclear*, etc are quite telling.

*Seriously, nobody in the USA or Europe is capable of building a nuclear reactor even remotely close to on time or on budget. I'd love if we could cost-effectively build more nuclear power - but that's not the reality today. At best it's a distraction promulgated by the fossil fuel industry - not something realistic.
Sure, we should keep up the research with the small scale nuclear like NuScale - but the current Giga scale nuclear construction industry is an utter project management disaster.

[StashingAway]

Let me guess: Your energy industry experience is primarily with fossil fuels. Your parroting of fossil fuel disinformation about environmental impacts of lithium, the distraction which is nuclear*, etc are quite telling.

Nope! wrong there! I work with energy auditing- we are very up to date on current and upcoming technology. I do a lot of heat pump evaluations and net-zero retrofits for the east coast. Sorry to bust yer bubble, but I want this transition to happen more than you. It's the entire reason I entered the field. And part of the reason I'm pushing so hard on this. I think focusing resources on solar and lithium batteries is not the direction to go.., but it has a religious following that is deeper than just analysis. It goes back to that Southpark episode where all the san franscisco drivers are walkign around saying they want to be part of the solution and not the problem. It's just so high and mighty without trying to be objective, and for a movement supposedly based on science it bugs me.

*Seriously, nobody in the USA or Europe is capable of building a nuclear reactor even remotely close to on time or on budget. I'd love if we could cost-effectively build more nuclear power - but that's not the reality today.

Ah, so now who's parroting industry talking points? Better be careful in that glass house of yours.

A) Nuclear enjoys zero subsidies that solar does. Subsidize it and level the playing field.
B) Nuclear enjoys zero public support- it is criminally criminalized. To the point that it takes 10 years to build a plant because not only is there public push back each step of the way, we allow the public to push back on issues that they aren't educated enough on. We could build them in 4 years if the public would get out of the way. Nuclear has safety standards and regulations that would annihilate any other industry. Which leads me to...
C) China can! China builds them in 3-4 years! How about that... and they're safe! Certainlly safer than that dam that killed 230,000 people in China when it broke. Guess how many people have died from nuclear? Chernobyl was ~45 people during the event, then another 4-5000 from cancer afterwards. That's peanuts. And that was an incredibly outdated reactor run by incompetent teams.

I suggest reviewing the projects already under development. Here's a starter from ERCOT: https://www.ercot.com/misdownload/servlets/mirDownload?doclookupId=868860006

Uh, one thing that battery folks often get very wrong is the distinction between GW and GWh. It's pretty easy to make a battery that peak shaves some expensive solar for a few hours. It's exponentially more difficult to make one that can handle long term grid energy storage. Huge grid batteries will help with peaker plant issues and grid management for solar and AC curbing in the south and southwest. But for, say, heating Chicago in the winter? Ha! Never going to make economic or resource sense. Speaking of things that haven't been done in the US or Europe, aside from hydro pumping in the mountainous regions, never have we build a long term grid battery storage. At least we used to build nuclear plants.


p.s. this isn't meant to be directed at you. I'm mainly yelling into the void. It seems so frustrating that the folks who would want this to happen most would be able to be most critical of it, but instead it's like walking through a field of horses with blinders on. I'm being hyperbolic, of course, I have my errors and need to be more humble.

[mistymoney]

Let me guess: Your energy industry experience is primarily with fossil fuels. Your parroting of fossil fuel disinformation about environmental impacts of lithium, the distraction which is nuclear*, etc are quite telling.

Nope! wrong there! I work with energy auditing- we are very up to date on current and upcoming technology. I do a lot of heat pump evaluations and net-zero retrofits for the east coast. Sorry to bust yer bubble, but I want this transition to happen more than you. It's the entire reason I entered the field. And part of the reason I'm pushing so hard on this. I think focusing resources on solar and lithium batteries is not the direction to go.., but it has a religious following that is deeper than just analysis. It goes back to that Southpark episode where all the san franscisco drivers are walkign around saying they want to be part of the solution and not the problem. It's just so high and mighty without trying to be objective, and for a movement supposedly based on science it bugs me.

so I have a quibble with this. So - there is an issue, and people have various ideas on addressing the issue, and then someone does something towards a solution idea they had.

And then someone else just criticizes it. Are you not free to go off and do your own "better idea"? Make that happen? If I'm going to pursue something - I'm going to work on my idea, not yours. You go do yours. If you can't make yours happen, why are you looking to me to make that happen for you? I've got my own idea.

as for nuclear, I'm not a fan. You be the peanut. I'm going to jelly over here on my own.


maybe do nuclear on the moon?

[Paper Chaser]

But I am not arguing that they will necessarily succeed at this, just that it is already part of the company, and they do have a good amount of focus in it.

the point was a poster said they are way over vlaued, but if they "become" an energy company then it's different! No, they are already doing it.

If people want to put in their bets that tesla is going to soar or slide or fall, hey - all fair, all good.

And if you wanna say - who knows what's going to happend with that maniac musk at the helm - could go anywhere. Also fair. And - a pretty good point!

But don't go making wildly definitive statements, and then subltly try to slide in a disclaimer that is already baked into their business plan. Because if tesla sinks - energy and all - then they go crowing I was right! And if tesla soars and someone says - you were wrong - and then no....look at this tiny sentence I squeazed in there so that if they do do energy piece than I'm not wrong.

I'm just calling bullshit on that. You want to make bold statements - have at it. But if you are looking to crow when you are right you better suck it up when you are wrong.

Ackchyually... I said that if the business model changes and they become more of an energy company...

Reality is that almost all of their revenue and profit currently comes from making and selling cars. That is their current business model. I'm aware that they have other products related to energy, but they're a car company through and through at the moment and their continued investment in that segment indicates they have no immediate plans of changing that. Energy doesn't seem to be a focus for them at the moment and they're not anywhere close to changing their entire business model to become more of an energy company as I suggested in my post.

If they make a significant change in strategy and begin to pursue their energy products more seriously and profitably then that would change things. But they'd be a very different business competing in a very different market at that point.
Some examples of that sort of switch might be
- Switching to CCS charging standard and opening the Supercharger network to all EVs (this has been discussed and I think makes a ton of sense for them to pursue, but it's just speculation still)
- Downsizing or halting expansion of the overhead heavy auto manufacturing/sales/support network rather than expanding and scaling up
- Pursuing cheaper, less volatile battery storage for home backup power rather than doubling down on Li-Ion

[StashingAway]

so I have a quibble with this. So - there is an issue, and people have various ideas on addressing the issue, and then someone does something towards a solution idea they had.

And then someone else just criticizes it. Are you not free to go off and do your own "better idea"? Make that happen?

Two responses here.

1) I don't have the resources that Elon Musk does, and I never ever will. He lucked out in the game of life and I'm doing my best to "make it happen" with what I've got. But to your point: I entered the job field that applies my skills to best make it happen. I am not just squabbling, I'm actively trying to make it happen. I'm criticizing because it is so important to me, not because I dislike it. It's the same as me worrying more about my brother than a random stranger. I have joined volunteer organizations that I think are on the right track (Citizen's Climate Lobby), I work it in my daily life, I vote it... I'm literally living it...

2) Responses like this make it pretty darn tough:

maybe do nuclear on the moon?

Out of curiosity, why so anti-nuclear? What is your particular reason?


Public opinion is the main barrier to Nuclear. We could do it if we wanted.

[TomTX]

*Seriously, nobody in the USA or Europe is capable of building a nuclear reactor even remotely close to on time or on budget. I'd love if we could cost-effectively build more nuclear power - but that's not the reality today.

Ah, so now who's parroting industry talking points? Better be careful in that glass house of yours.
A) Nuclear enjoys zero subsidies that solar does. Subsidize it and level the playing field.
B) Nuclear enjoys zero public support- it is criminally criminalized. To the point that it takes 10 years to build a plant because not only is there public push back each step of the way, we allow the public to push back on issues that they aren't educated enough on. We could build them in 4 years if the public would get out of the way. Nuclear has safety standards and regulations that would annihilate any other industry. Which leads me to...
C) China can! China builds them in 3-4 years! How about that... and they're safe! Certainlly safer than that dam that killed 230,000 people in China when it broke. Guess how many people have died from nuclear? Chernobyl was ~45 people during the event, then another 4-5000 from cancer afterwards. That's peanuts. And that was an incredibly outdated reactor run by incompetent teams.

LOL! C'mon - China? You know that's not a viable alternative in the USA or Europe.

All modern giga-scale nuclear build attempts in the USA and Europe have been project management failures. 4 AP1000 reactors in the USA, all of them massively blew their budgets and timeframes. Two were abandoned after wasting billions of dollars - each! Two are continuing, with continued extensions to budget and timeframe - each of which was at least triple the original promises the last time I checked. For projects started in the USA in the last 30 years, zero have produced a watt of power.

Europe hasn't had any outright abandoned projects, but they're seeing the same schedule and budget screwups. It's harder to extract real costs as the French government is absorbing a fair amount of the overruns. Finland actually got their (French built) reactor online - briefly. They had to shut it down for repairs within a couple of months. Even without the repair issue - we're still talking about being at least 3x the promised timeframe and at least 3x the promised cost. Others are doing no better.

I'd support nuclear if there was any Western company who could demonstrate they could build one remotely close to on time or on budget. The only hope I have right now are the "small modular" upstarts. NuScale and such - maybe they can figure out how to keep to budget and schedule.

Solar can be on the grid months after construction starts. Wind can be on the grid in under a year after construction starts. We don't have a decade+ to wait for nuclear to figure it out.

Public opinion is the main barrier to Nuclear. We could do it if we wanted.

This is not the 1970s. Projects in the USA were favored by the local populace, and I believe the ones in Europe as well. Construction started. Westinghouse and the French both screwed up on execution. Massively.

I suggest reviewing the projects already under development. Here's a starter from ERCOT: https://www.ercot.com/misdownload/servlets/mirDownload?doclookupId=868860006

Uh, one thing that battery folks often get very wrong is the distinction between GW and GWh.

Good thing this wasn't directed at me, since I did not get that wrong and have not done so for years.

[mistymoney]

so I have a quibble with this. So - there is an issue, and people have various ideas on addressing the issue, and then someone does something towards a solution idea they had.

And then someone else just criticizes it. Are you not free to go off and do your own "better idea"? Make that happen?

Two responses here.

1) I don't have the resources that Elon Musk does, and I never ever will. He lucked out in the game of life and I'm doing my best to "make it happen" with what I've got. But to your point: I entered the job field that applies my skills to best make it happen. I am not just squabbling, I'm actively trying to make it happen. I'm criticizing because it is so important to me, not because I dislike it. It's the same as me worrying more about my brother than a random stranger. I have joined volunteer organizations that I think are on the right track (Citizen's Climate Lobby), I work it in my daily life, I vote it... I'm literally living it...

2) Responses like this make it pretty darn tough:

maybe do nuclear on the moon?

Out of curiosity, why so anti-nuclear? What is your particular reason?


Public opinion is the main barrier to Nuclear. We could do it if we wanted.

Here is your quote:

Guess how many people have died from nuclear? Chernobyl was ~45 people during the event, then another 4-5000 from cancer afterwards. That's peanuts.

as I said - you be the peanut!

I wrote out some of my reasoning, but I deleted. Why does it matter? Why don't I have the right, the choice to not want it, not want it around me, and pay for other power sources?

[mistymoney]

But I am not arguing that they will necessarily succeed at this, just that it is already part of the company, and they do have a good amount of focus in it.

the point was a poster said they are way over vlaued, but if they "become" an energy company then it's different! No, they are already doing it.

If people want to put in their bets that tesla is going to soar or slide or fall, hey - all fair, all good.

And if you wanna say - who knows what's going to happend with that maniac musk at the helm - could go anywhere. Also fair. And - a pretty good point!

But don't go making wildly definitive statements, and then subltly try to slide in a disclaimer that is already baked into their business plan. Because if tesla sinks - energy and all - then they go crowing I was right! And if tesla soars and someone says - you were wrong - and then no....look at this tiny sentence I squeazed in there so that if they do do energy piece than I'm not wrong.

I'm just calling bullshit on that. You want to make bold statements - have at it. But if you are looking to crow when you are right you better suck it up when you are wrong.

Ackchyually... I said that if the business model changes and they become more of an energy company...

so you have no real prediction on their future success? I just want to be clear on that.

[mistymoney]

so I have a quibble with this. So - there is an issue, and people have various ideas on addressing the issue, and then someone does something towards a solution idea they had.

And then someone else just criticizes it. Are you not free to go off and do your own "better idea"? Make that happen?

Two responses here.

1) I don't have the resources that Elon Musk does, and I never ever will. He lucked out in the game of life and I'm doing my best to "make it happen" with what I've got.

I totally get that, but that means he gets to do what he wants with his companies. One thing you can't fault him on it have a vision of what he wants to do. Someone saying from the sidelines - Hey - this might be a better method! After you've been working on your vision for 10 years? I get the frustration if you see a clearly better path, but asking someone else to change their vision and methods is a really high expectation.

But I certainly wish you well with whatever methods you are trying to put through! Except nuclear..... ;)

[StashingAway]

All modern giga-scale nuclear build attempts in the USA and Europe have been project management failures. 4 AP1000 reactors in the USA, all of them massively blew their budgets and timeframes. Two were abandoned after wasting billions of dollars - each! Two are continuing, with continued extensions to budget and timeframe - each of which was at least triple the original promises the last time I checked. For projects started in the USA in the last 30 years, zero have produced a watt of power.

Yes, keep up here. I've already said as much. They were over budget entirely because they got dragged out for so long from public pushback. They are held to way higher safety standards than any other energy source because of public fear; no one really pushes back against a gas plant even though it's emitting way more pollutants. The primary factor that increases cost of any building project is time on site. You can't throttle the build of such projects while simultaneously say they're not feasible. It's like kicking your dog and then complaining that they're aggressive. Well, yeah, of course they are.

China proves that they can be built fast and well. That is all. You said they couldn't. They can.

I wrote out some of my reasoning, but I deleted. Why does it matter? Why don't I have the right, the choice to not want it, not want it around me, and pay for other power sources?

It matters because I would like to see why your choices are what they are so that I'm not just making assumptions about your stance. Nuclear is an awesome energy source. Most people are dead wrong about many things nuclear. It is literally the safest grid-level energy source (solar is safer, but is useless without a backup/baseline energy source currently) and has the track record to prove it. It currently powers 19%! of the US grid. It's amazing, and people watch one Netflix documentary and all of these psychological biases kick in and think it's some uncontainable mystery energy.

I will be the peanut. It's safer to work in a nuclear plant than a coal or gas one. And we're not even close to having solar ready as a primary source. It's safer than being in a lithium mine to get all of these grid batteries out. I will/do live what I preach. When I lived in Chicago surrounded by nuclear plants I spent weekends in Palos Park which is a huge area with of a decommissioned reactor. It's quite safe... morose than people think.  We have one of the best nuclear regulatory commissions in the  world (the US NRC). Our team was sent to Fukashima after their disaster (which, mind you, still only had 2,000 deaths, mainly workers, and is far safer than driving in a car every day). Mind you, our plants would never be build like Fukashima- if you read up on these incidents they are quite the series of preventable events, and ultimately their impact is low except in the media world where a nuclear incident makes great headlines. I would rather do that than work on windmills (statistically less safe per unit of energy produced). It's the best thing we've got. This isn't unlike the MMM forum; trusting the numbers. Put away savings in index funds until you can live on 4%. It doesn't seem like it would work at first glance, but if you trust the numbers you can be pretty darn sure that it can.


https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

I totally get that, but that means he gets to do what he wants with his companies.

Well, I agree with that, but you're missing the point. I was responding to your insinuation that I should just make my vision a reality like Elon has. It's no different than telling me to just win the lottery if I want to become rich. I have about a 10 in 7 billion chance of doing that. Thanks for the encouragement! I'm doing what I can with what I have... I consider myself extremely lucky to be where I'm at with the resources I grew up with, and it occurs to me regularly that there are hundreds of thousands of potentially smarter and more motivate people than me who just happen to be born in the wrong country. But it irks me when people just assume that Elon somehow is above humility. He didn't chose his brain or his parents or the era that he grew up in... like no one else did.

I'll bow out of this thread. I'm taking it too personally and I don't think that I have the chance of changing anyone's mind (who does on the internet anyway?). All I want to say is that you should consider nuclear on your own time rather than what you've been told. It's probably a much different picture than you imagine. How do you think all of the large ships and submarines in the military get around?

[Niceday]

I think from an investment standpoint, the reason that market share might be a concern is that TSLA currently has $700 billion market cap, which is more than the top 10 largest auto makers combined, while moving a very small percentage of units relative to those same companies (their volume is currently ~10% of what Toyota or VW do in a year.) So the stock seems like it's priced as if they'll continue market domination. Erosion of market share seems to fly in the face of that valuation, which could increase downside risk, and reduce upside for a prospective investor. IF you're already holding, then it may be less of a concern, but downside risk is always something to consider.

Unit market share is far from the only metric - especially when Tesla ASP is something like $60k with a 30% gross margin, compared to $5k for some high volume Chinese models.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56178802

One might compare this with the cell phone market. Last I checked, Apple was a relatively small portion of the unit share compared to Android. However, Apple had the majority of cell phone hardware profits.

Apple has been the first or second largest market share in the smart phone business for a long time


So they're consistently 1a or 1b in market share. I'll take your word on the profitability claims relative to the competition. With those conditions (significant market share and higher profitability) AAPL is currently $142/share while the closest competition (Samsung) is priced equivalent to $39.54/share. So with a very large market share, and higher profitability, they're priced at 4 times their biggest competitor.

TSLA is currently $219 while VW shares are $12.50. So if the future of EVs will be like smart phones, with TSLA being the AAPL equivalent, we should expect TSLA to be roughly 4 times what VW's stock is. To me, that makes TSLA seem overpriced and not a great investment at this point. If anything, VW (and other legacy automakers) looks like it has more potential for upside. That doesn't mean that TSLA hasn't been a good investment at times in the past. Just saying that it doesn't seem to me like there's a bunch of room for growth at this point. My crystal ball is hazy, and my eyes suck.

There is a large amount of errors in your posts, especially in this one, both in quantity and magnitude. The moment you started to compare companies by comparing their stock prices, most people stopped listening to your arguments. It seems you're shooting yourself in your foot here. The more you talk, the more you reveal how much you don't know.

[mistymoney]

All modern giga-scale nuclear build attempts in the USA and Europe have been project management failures. 4 AP1000 reactors in the USA, all of them massively blew their budgets and timeframes. Two were abandoned after wasting billions of dollars - each! Two are continuing, with continued extensions to budget and timeframe - each of which was at least triple the original promises the last time I checked. For projects started in the USA in the last 30 years, zero have produced a watt of power.

Yes, keep up here. I've already said as much. They were over budget entirely because they got dragged out for so long from public pushback. They are held to way higher safety standards than any other energy source because of public fear; no one really pushes back against a gas plant even though it's emitting way more pollutants. The primary factor that increases cost of any building project is time on site. You can't throttle the build of such projects while simultaneously say they're not feasible. It's like kicking your dog and then complaining that they're aggressive. Well, yeah, of course they are.

China proves that they can be built fast and well. That is all. You said they couldn't. They can.

I wrote out some of my reasoning, but I deleted. Why does it matter? Why don't I have the right, the choice to not want it, not want it around me, and pay for other power sources?

It matters because I would like to see why your choices are what they are so that I'm not just making assumptions about your stance. Nuclear is an awesome energy source. Most people are dead wrong about many things nuclear. It is literally the safest grid-level energy source (solar is safer, but is useless without a backup/baseline energy source currently) and has the track record to prove it. It currently powers 19%! of the US grid. It's amazing, and people watch one Netflix documentary and all of these psychological biases kick in and think it's some uncontainable mystery energy.

I will be the peanut. It's safer to work in a nuclear plant than a coal or gas one. And we're not even close to having solar ready as a primary source. It's safer than being in a lithium mine to get all of these grid batteries out. I will/do live what I preach. When I lived in Chicago surrounded by nuclear plants I spent weekends in Palos Park which is a huge area with of a decommissioned reactor. It's quite safe... morose than people think.  We have one of the best nuclear regulatory commissions in the  world (the US NRC). Our team was sent to Fukashima after their disaster (which, mind you, still only had 2,000 deaths, mainly workers, and is far safer than driving in a car every day). Mind you, our plants would never be build like Fukashima- if you read up on these incidents they are quite the series of preventable events, and ultimately their impact is low except in the media world where a nuclear incident makes great headlines. I would rather do that than work on windmills (statistically less safe per unit of energy produced). It's the best thing we've got. This isn't unlike the MMM forum; trusting the numbers. Put away savings in index funds until you can live on 4%. It doesn't seem like it would work at first glance, but if you trust the numbers you can be pretty darn sure that it can.


https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

I totally get that, but that means he gets to do what he wants with his companies.

Well, I agree with that, but you're missing the point. I was responding to your insinuation that I should just make my vision a reality like Elon has. It's no different than telling me to just win the lottery if I want to become rich. I have about a 10 in 7 billion chance of doing that. Thanks for the encouragement! I'm doing what I can with what I have... I consider myself extremely lucky to be where I'm at with the resources I grew up with, and it occurs to me regularly that there are hundreds of thousands of potentially smarter and more motivate people than me who just happen to be born in the wrong country. But it irks me when people just assume that Elon somehow is above humility. He didn't chose his brain or his parents or the era that he grew up in... like no one else did.

I'll bow out of this thread. I'm taking it too personally and I don't think that I have the chance of changing anyone's mind (who does on the internet anyway?). All I want to say is that you should consider nuclear on your own time rather than what you've been told. It's probably a much different picture than you imagine. How do you think all of the large ships and submarines in the military get around?

I think elon is a first class asshole, if that helps at all. I am invested in tesla, and his personality issues do give me frequent pause. It is a tough situation for me to see what an ass and how stupid he can be, in an ongoing manner.

One aspect of nuclear that has me in the no category is the history (not confined to nuclear at all!) for dangerous wastes to affect health and of corporate and political corruption whereby when the SHTF coverups and denials are top priorities rather than the safety of people. continuing profits, without accountability for any of the elites, is the soup du jour.

You identify nuclear as the way to go, and just want to counter objections rather than to understand that I don't want nuclear power, and I don't want a nuclear plant near me, I do not trust companies nor government to protect me, to protect others, and I'm willing to pay more for alternatives. I take that as my right. To make these decisions for myself, for my community. I reject nuclear power so that I am not fostering those issues for other communities outside my own.

Your notes here are also a bit concerning to me.

Our team was sent to Fukashima after their disaster (which, mind you, still only had 2,000 deaths, mainly workers, and is far safer than driving in a car every day).

I find this so callous. only 2000 people. 2000 families ripped apart and never whole again. When I think of these things, I don't think about 2000 people and less than driving a car. I think of their loved ones. I think of their agony dying from a completely preventable cancer (can I please go out quickly in a car accident instead?), their regrets as they shrivel away, their unlived rest of their lives that were stolen from them. I think if it was my family torn apart and never whole again. I think if I watched my child whither away as they succumbed to cancer.

[StashingAway]

Our team was sent to Fukashima after their disaster (which, mind you, still only had 2,000 deaths, mainly workers, and is far safer than driving in a car every day).

I find this so callous. only 2000 people. 2000 families ripped apart and never whole again. When I think of these things, I don't think about 2000 people and less than driving a car. I think of their loved ones. I think of their agony dying from a completely preventable cancer (can I please go out quickly in a car accident instead?), their regrets as they shrivel away, their unlived rest of their lives that were stolen from them. I think if it was my family torn apart and never whole again. I think if I watched my child whither away as they succumbed to cancer.

JFC, what the hell?!!! I'm talking about preventing as many deaths as possible. How you turned that around to think I don't care about individuals is just insane. You better turn your electricity off right now because all of the gas and coal that you're using is killing more people per kWh than nuclear does. Seriously, think about all of the oil and gas workers... think of the poor families living near coal plants with higher levels of cancer because of the radiation given off of them (seriously). Look at those numbers on that link from before. Those are orders of magnitude more people dying compared to nuclear... and you don't care about them! Think about all the families losing loved ones from nuclear, except back at you x100.

This is incredibly insulting to me... you think I don't care?! It made months of international news for "only" (yes "only") 2,000 deaths. That's not no one, but for one incident in the last 10 years globally, it's so few people... It's a morbid subject, but it's the reality of the world. Things you do have effects. Ignoring those doesn't make them not exist, it's better to recognize them so that you can minimize them.

I can see this is now beyond a discussion I can have. I've been told that I don't care about people and that I am being fed lines by the oil and gas industry... it's quite the affront and the discussion isn't coming from a good faith rational place. It's quite deceptive and emotive.

[mistymoney]

Our team was sent to Fukashima after their disaster (which, mind you, still only had 2,000 deaths, mainly workers, and is far safer than driving in a car every day).

I find this so callous. only 2000 people. 2000 families ripped apart and never whole again. When I think of these things, I don't think about 2000 people and less than driving a car. I think of their loved ones. I think of their agony dying from a completely preventable cancer (can I please go out quickly in a car accident instead?), their regrets as they shrivel away, their unlived rest of their lives that were stolen from them. I think if it was my family torn apart and never whole again. I think if I watched my child whither away as they succumbed to cancer.

JFC, what the hell?!!! I'm talking about preventing as many deaths as possible. How you turned that around to think I don't care about individuals is just insane. You better turn your electricity off right now because all of the gas and coal that you're using is killing more people per kWh than nuclear does. Seriously, think about all of the oil and gas workers... think of the poor families living near coal plants with higher levels of cancer because of the radiation given off of them (seriously). Look at those numbers on that link from before. Those are orders of magnitude more people dying compared to nuclear... and you don't care about them! Think about all the families losing loved ones from nuclear, except back at you x100.

This is incredibly insulting to me... you think I don't care?! It made months of international news for "only" (yes "only") 2,000 deaths. That's not no one, but for one incident in the last 10 years globally, it's so few people... It's a morbid subject, but it's the reality of the world. Things you do have effects. Ignoring those doesn't make them not exist, it's better to recognize them so that you can minimize them.

I can see this is now beyond a discussion I can have. I've been told that I don't care about people and that I am being fed lines by the oil and gas industry... it's quite the affront and the discussion isn't coming from a good faith rational place. It's quite deceptive and emotive.

how do you determine that? Because people don't agree with you? What do you expect when you say - oh a nuclear plant accident - only 2000 died. 4-5000 died from chernobyl and you call that peanuts.

In turn, you're assuming a lot about me and my energy consumption that isn't true. And I'm not calling anyone's death peanuts.

[ATtiny85]

Anytime the deaths come in a larger group perspectives often get skewed. Kill 'em one or two at a time and it doesn’t matter what the total is.

[mistymoney]

Anytime the deaths come in a larger group perspectives often get skewed. Kill 'em one or two at a time and it doesn’t matter what the total is.

but you could couch your observation in x deaths here y(x) deaths from there, rather than call x peanuts.