I mostly missed the boat on Amazon, a company I thought had promise Long long ago. A DCA approach there would have yielded a fortune
Tesla intends to be more than just a car company. It’s woefully unprofitable. However, so has been amazon throughout its life.
Could TSLA be a 10 bagger a decade from now? I’m considering allocating 6% of new money and buying in every week or month.
Thoughts?
Could TSLA be a 10 bagger a decade from now?
This is the "get rich slowly" forum, not the "magic 8 ball hot stock pick" forum. Tesla could be worth a trillion dollars someday, or it could keep plodding along. How long are you willing to sit on the stock and find out? Apple was the stock to own in the mid 80s, nearly became worthless in the 90s, and is now the biggest company on Earth. You only needed to wait 30 years to reach that point and never in that period ever think that you had made a bad decision buying. That's the thought process you need to have whenever you think about buying an individual stock. You also need to ask what you're foregoing by buying that hopefully profitable stock now rather than something you know is going to be more reliable in giving you a return on your investment.
There is no moat. Two years ago if you wanted a high-end performance electric car, your only choice was Tesla. Within a year or two, nearly every high-end manufacturer will have an electric vehicle. Porsche, Mercedes, BMW, etc.
There is no moat. Two years ago if you wanted a high-end performance electric car, your only choice was Tesla. Within a year or two, nearly every high-end manufacturer will have an electric vehicle. Porsche, Mercedes, BMW, etc.
Ahhh yes but with no charging infrastructure and a number of years behind establishing one, the network of ever increasing Tesla Superchargers, 1100 or more currently, enabling interstate travel globally is quite the moat. Trust me when I say few people will purchase 60-100K plus electric cars that cannot travel interstates easily with a reasonably fast and convienient charging solution. Basic fully electric cars like the Nissan Leaf are city commuter cars and most who own them have other long distance travel solutions. Tesla’s are suitable for interstate travel offering both the range and charging solutions required.
Add OTA software updates improving the car and adding features, including the one I received yesterday that substantially improves AP2 enhanced autopilot, there is not a single offering, concept or otherwise, that offers a better value proposition currently in the premium, high performance fully electric market.
I am reminded courtesy of the New York Times that ...”Overall, the Tesla Model S is the best electric car you can buy, and one of the best cars of any type.”
They are well positioned from a brand/product standpoint, but that is only one piece.
Tesla intends to be more than just a car company. It’s woefully unprofitable. However, so has been amazon throughout its life.
Model 3 ramp-up will determine the fate of Tesla. They will either figure out the production problems and ramp up soon or they will run out of cash and investors will sue, sort of like Tucker. It could be a very, very exciting stock to own, either way.
Model 3 ramp-up will determine the fate of Tesla. They will either figure out the production problems and ramp up soon or they will run out of cash and investors will sue, sort of like Tucker. It could be a very, very exciting stock to own, either way.
Even if they ramp up the Model 3 soon they will still be losing several billion dollars per year. They lose money on the S, X, and 3.
Also the "Model 3 ramp" is one of the canards that Musk has gotten investors and the media to believe. No other car maker has a production ramp. They just go through all the development and testing of the vehicle (which Tesla skipped) and then turn on the switch at the factory and start mass producing cars. The new Leaf just came on the market and they are already selling about 10,000 per month. No "ramp", no quality problems, no massive losses, and no restriction of which version of the car is available. Just cars that work and are available.
1 stock is always dangerous unless you have the extra money to play with.
As for the car itself..... I don't like it. My buddy has one. We had the choice and chose a Maserati. While he was looking for a charging station we were driving all we wanted to. If he leaves his house in Austin he has to plan to stop in Waco to charge if he comes to our house in Fort Worth. And it's not just a quick thing like a fill-up is. They are making great strides with batteries and hopefully they get it figured out so I can enjoy it but I doubt it.
I find their issues getting the cheap car manufactured to be fascinating.
I hope eventually be some tell all's come put about it.
What the hell is going so wrong? Anyone have speculation?
It's not overblown at all. The original target was to produce 5,000 cars per week by the end of 2017. They now say they will hit that target by the end of Q2. 6 months late to a production target is a huge deal.I find their issues getting the cheap car manufactured to be fascinating.
I hope eventually be some tell all's come put about it.
What the hell is going so wrong? Anyone have speculation?
Well, they had a plan to reach a 10k/week rate by the end of 2020 (originally expressed as a "500k/year rate by the end of 2020, which is the same thing, but was repeatedly misinterpreted as 500k IN 2020, so they switched to talking about weekly rate)
When the response to the unveiling was so overwhelming (~400k reservations) - they said they would try to reach that rate by 2018, pulling it in two whole years. This is an insanely aggressive schedule for a brand new car design on a brand new production line different from any production line they have done before. Plus brand new automated battery pack production facilities for their brand new larger 2170 cells.
From what they have said, the main bottleneck was the new automated pack assembly. This is apparently being resolved - the number of VIN registrations went WAY up last week.
The whole "going so wrong" is overblown. Multiple estimates have put Model 3 production for January and February ahead of Bolt production - and Bolt had already been in production for a year before Model 3. Additionally, GM outsources the powertrain (including pack assembly) to LG, and has FAR longer history building cars and FAR more experienced workforce on the assembly line.
It's not overblown at all. The original target was to produce 5,000 cars per week by the end of 2017. They now say they will hit that target by the end of Q2. 6 months late to a production target is a huge deal.I find their issues getting the cheap car manufactured to be fascinating.
I hope eventually be some tell all's come put about it.
What the hell is going so wrong? Anyone have speculation?
Well, they had a plan to reach a 10k/week rate by the end of 2020 (originally expressed as a "500k/year rate by the end of 2020, which is the same thing, but was repeatedly misinterpreted as 500k IN 2020, so they switched to talking about weekly rate)
When the response to the unveiling was so overwhelming (~400k reservations) - they said they would try to reach that rate by 2018, pulling it in two whole years. This is an insanely aggressive schedule for a brand new car design on a brand new production line different from any production line they have done before. Plus brand new automated battery pack production facilities for their brand new larger 2170 cells.
From what they have said, the main bottleneck was the new automated pack assembly. This is apparently being resolved - the number of VIN registrations went WAY up last week.
The whole "going so wrong" is overblown. Multiple estimates have put Model 3 production for January and February ahead of Bolt production - and Bolt had already been in production for a year before Model 3. Additionally, GM outsources the powertrain (including pack assembly) to LG, and has FAR longer history building cars and FAR more experienced workforce on the assembly line.
The Bolt comparison is bs as well as that was never promised as a high volume car and they still had to idle the plant last year due to a lack of demand. Days of inventory is low right now but that may be by design as they know the demand right now is frustrated Model 3. If Tesla pulls a miracle and actually hits a deadline (there is a first time for everything) they don't want to be sitting on 70 days of inventory.
Please provide evidence of that original Model 3 target because I was not aware of that and my google skills are letting me down.It's not overblown at all. The original target was to produce 5,000 cars per week by the end of 2017. They now say they will hit that target by the end of Q2. 6 months late to a production target is a huge deal.I find their issues getting the cheap car manufactured to be fascinating.
I hope eventually be some tell all's come put about it.
What the hell is going so wrong? Anyone have speculation?
Well, they had a plan to reach a 10k/week rate by the end of 2020 (originally expressed as a "500k/year rate by the end of 2020, which is the same thing, but was repeatedly misinterpreted as 500k IN 2020, so they switched to talking about weekly rate)
When the response to the unveiling was so overwhelming (~400k reservations) - they said they would try to reach that rate by 2018, pulling it in two whole years. This is an insanely aggressive schedule for a brand new car design on a brand new production line different from any production line they have done before. Plus brand new automated battery pack production facilities for their brand new larger 2170 cells.
From what they have said, the main bottleneck was the new automated pack assembly. This is apparently being resolved - the number of VIN registrations went WAY up last week.
The whole "going so wrong" is overblown. Multiple estimates have put Model 3 production for January and February ahead of Bolt production - and Bolt had already been in production for a year before Model 3. Additionally, GM outsources the powertrain (including pack assembly) to LG, and has FAR longer history building cars and FAR more experienced workforce on the assembly line.
The Bolt comparison is bs as well as that was never promised as a high volume car and they still had to idle the plant last year due to a lack of demand. Days of inventory is low right now but that may be by design as they know the demand right now is frustrated Model 3. If Tesla pulls a miracle and actually hits a deadline (there is a first time for everything) they don't want to be sitting on 70 days of inventory.
No, the ORIGINAL target for Model 3 was 10k/week at the end of 2020. As I already stated. They attempted to speed that up to meet overwhelming customer demand, and made multiple statements that they expected to miss the revised targets. They also said they expected to miss the July 2017 planned start of production.
Why is Bolt comparison BS? They have many thousands of outstanding outside the US - years worth in some markets. GM also promoted it as the first practical, mass market EV
Entirely a fair comparison. Unless you think GM is just intentionally dragging their feet - which is a plausible perspective.
Sure thing. Here's an article written when the change was made:
Please provide evidence of that original Model 3 target because I was not aware of that and my google skills are letting me down.
The Bolt comparison is BS because factories are set up around a specific volume. All indications are that GM used a volume of around 30k units annually for the Bolt which is the pace they were being produced in the 2nd half of last year. You can't compare that to Tesla who has a factory built around building 500k vehicles per year but delivered 1550 in Q4 last year (when they were supposed to be building 5k/week) and claim that Tesla is doing well. The amount of investment at Fremont is staggering and running at a fraction of capacity is a money losing proposition.
Also, GM is increasing production later this year of the Bolt: https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/03/08/why-does-general-motors-want-to-boost-production-o.aspx
Looking back, it looks like we were talking about 2 different targets. I was talking about the 5k/week target for end of 2017 that I'm not aware of changing at any point. You were talking about the 10k/week target by end of 2018 which did move up, as your link showed.Sure thing. Here's an article written when the change was made:
Please provide evidence of that original Model 3 target because I was not aware of that and my google skills are letting me down.
https://electrek.co/2016/05/04/tesla-tsla-surge-model-3-production/
Looking back, it looks like we were talking about 2 different targets. I was talking about the 5k/week target for end of 2017 that I'm not aware of changing at any point. You were talking about the 10k/week target by end of 2018 which did move up, as your link showed.Sure thing. Here's an article written when the change was made:
Please provide evidence of that original Model 3 target because I was not aware of that and my google skills are letting me down.
https://electrek.co/2016/05/04/tesla-tsla-surge-model-3-production/
Did the 5k/week target ever change? Because that is the target they have missed massively and I was trying to find evidence of.
Five years from now it will not matter whether it took them an extra six months to get production up to 5k/week.
@ColoradoTribe: I agree EVs will do great things. However, Tesla has to still be around to benefit from that.
They have built amazing cars. They have big dreams for the future. I personally want them to be successful, I want to be able to buy a used Model 3 in the future. I want to be able to have solar with a battery back up. The problem is that investors have been pumping up the stock based on the dreams of what Tesla 'could be,' and not what it is today. Expectations have been set unrealistically high and Tesla has borrowed money based on those expectations.QuoteFive years from now it will not matter whether it took them an extra six months to get production up to 5k/week.
Actually, in reality, it might matter a lot. It could be the difference between Tesla producing 1 million cars/year in 5 years VS bankruptcy within 12 months. Tesla will need more funding soon. Bond investors don't live in the clouds, they don't trade based on dreams of what could be in 5-10 years. Bond investors like results, and they like those results printed on boring balance sheets and cash flow statements. If Tesla doesn't increase Model 3 production, FAST, like really FAST, then the next time they issue bonds they might not find willing investors. Tesla isn't Apple or Google, or even Ford. Those companies have cash on hand. They can handle shocks. They can recover from mistakes. Tesla is running on borrowed money and broken promises. Many great companies have fallen prey to big dreams... and too much leverage.
The first time I heard of Tesla they were building electric high performance sports cars. The idea was to raise capital to later produce consumer electric cars that didn't suck. I laughed because they started selling them just as gas went up and everyone wanted a good electric car and nobody could afford a high performance electric sports car. At least not anyone who couldn't already afford a Lamborghini. The joke was on me. Tesla had crap timing. But they had the tech savvy to build a high performance electric car. Something I should've considered more carefully. Once they got things on an even keel, their stock went from $20 to $200.
I figured I'd already missed the big growth opportunity. But I examined Tesla a little more closely. The CEO, Elon Musk is a visionary, with his fingers in all sorts of tech pies from rockets to goofy flamethrowers. Tesla is a futuristic company that is near fully automated. It produces sophisticated automobiles with a fraction of the workforce. There's a whole thread on this board about how automation will kill jobs. But for an investor, that's very promising. So I invested at "the top" of $200. The stock, while volatile, hasn't disappointed. I expect it will have serious ups and downs over the next few years. But overall I think it's a good buy and hold.
Still prefer Index Funds though.
@ColoradoTribe: I agree EVs will do great things. However, Tesla has to still be around to benefit from that.
They have built amazing cars. They have big dreams for the future. I personally want them to be successful, I want to be able to buy a used Model 3 in the future. I want to be able to have solar with a battery back up. The problem is that investors have been pumping up the stock based on the dreams of what Tesla 'could be,' and not what it is today. Expectations have been set unrealistically high and Tesla has borrowed money based on those expectations.QuoteFive years from now it will not matter whether it took them an extra six months to get production up to 5k/week.
Actually, in reality, it might matter a lot. It could be the difference between Tesla producing 1 million cars/year in 5 years VS bankruptcy within 12 months. Tesla will need more funding soon. Bond investors don't live in the clouds, they don't trade based on dreams of what could be in 5-10 years. Bond investors like results, and they like those results printed on boring balance sheets and cash flow statements. If Tesla doesn't increase Model 3 production, FAST, like really FAST, then the next time they issue bonds they might not find willing investors. Tesla isn't Apple or Google, or even Ford. Those companies have cash on hand. They can handle shocks. They can recover from mistakes. Tesla is running on borrowed money and broken promises. Many great companies have fallen prey to big dreams... and too much leverage.
People have been predicting Tesla's imminent bankruptcy and demise for as long as I've been following the company/stock. I bought more common shares today and will sleep well tonight. Those aligned against this company and its disruption (not you personally) know that once the model 3 ramp is complete that Tesla becomes profitable and this narrative goes away, so they're milking it one last time. I see indication that the model 3 ramp has picked up to 1500 - 2000/week the past week or two. They'll likely hit 2500/week in the first of Q2, in plenty of time to satisfy bond investors. There was a chance of Tesla failing in the early going, the chances of such a failure now are very low IMO. We'll know for sure in a few years.
I have Tesla but it's not the only individual stock I own. I wouldn't tell someone to own index funds + 1 stock you think will do well. Own index funds + a basket of stocks you think will do well. Here's what I have:
Index funds
Volatility trading strategy
Individual Stocks:
Facebook FB
Amazon AMZN
Netflix NFLX
Tesla TSLA
Hubspot HUBS
Salesforce CRM
Shopify SHOP
Ringcentral RNG
Zendesk ZEN
Tencent Holdings TCEHY (Chinese company that owns WeChat which is huge over there)
With individual stocks I take the Peter Lynch approach and buy stuff I use, know and work with. I also consider companies that have super smart people running them, and attract the smartest, most motivated people in the world wanting to work for them. I don't work in biotech, so I have no business buying biotech stocks for the long run. I don't have a clue if this new medicine is gonna work out or not, because I'm not an industry insider.
Because of my job in business to business software sales, I know that everyone is using HUBS, CRM, SHOP, RNG and ZEN. I have 'insider' status in this industry, and the apps that everyone wants to use are probably good investments for the long run.
With FB, AMZN, NFLX and TSLA, those are companies run by their original founders, the founder is a genius and wants to take over the world. That's a decent company to get behind.
Of course, any one of these companies could turn a corner and stop performing well. That's why I hold a basket. I have no clue which company this might happen to, so I don't want a lot of my money tied up into any single stock.
If I have additional money come in, I'd also consider:
Apple AAPL
Google GOOGL
Alibaba BABA
Intuit INTU
Wix.com WIX
GoDaddy GDDY
@ColoradoTribe: I agree EVs will do great things. However, Tesla has to still be around to benefit from that.
They have built amazing cars. They have big dreams for the future. I personally want them to be successful, I want to be able to buy a used Model 3 in the future. I want to be able to have solar with a battery back up. The problem is that investors have been pumping up the stock based on the dreams of what Tesla 'could be,' and not what it is today. Expectations have been set unrealistically high and Tesla has borrowed money based on those expectations.QuoteFive years from now it will not matter whether it took them an extra six months to get production up to 5k/week.
Actually, in reality, it might matter a lot. It could be the difference between Tesla producing 1 million cars/year in 5 years VS bankruptcy within 12 months. Tesla will need more funding soon. Bond investors don't live in the clouds, they don't trade based on dreams of what could be in 5-10 years. Bond investors like results, and they like those results printed on boring balance sheets and cash flow statements. If Tesla doesn't increase Model 3 production, FAST, like really FAST, then the next time they issue bonds they might not find willing investors. Tesla isn't Apple or Google, or even Ford. Those companies have cash on hand. They can handle shocks. They can recover from mistakes. Tesla is running on borrowed money and broken promises. Many great companies have fallen prey to big dreams... and too much leverage.
People have been predicting Tesla's imminent bankruptcy and demise for as long as I've been following the company/stock. I bought more common shares today and will sleep well tonight. Those aligned against this company and its disruption (not you personally) know that once the model 3 ramp is complete that Tesla becomes profitable and this narrative goes away, so they're milking it one last time. I see indication that the model 3 ramp has picked up to 1500 - 2000/week the past week or two. They'll likely hit 2500/week in the first of Q2, in plenty of time to satisfy bond investors. There was a chance of Tesla failing in the early going, the chances of such a failure now are very low IMO. We'll know for sure in a few years.
Sure people have predicted bankruptcy before but past performance cannot be extrapolated forward. This is clearly make-or-break time for Tesla. In the past investors have bailed them out, by giving them more cash. However, given that this is what the company has been shooting for, the high-volume, mass market EV, if they can be successful in ramping up production (and have enough demand) then they should be okay. If not, they may go bankrupt in the next 1-12 months.
However, even if they are successful at their ramp up, the main remaining potential worry that I see is that they will likely not be a top-5 automaker and thus cannot justify their market cap. Once they stop being a company valued on future potential and our desire to see a sustainable transportation future but on actual sales and revenue and profits and reliability and all the other boring stuff that most blue chip companies are judged on, then I see it as unlikely that their sales will be similar to the big car makers. Remember all the other guys are bringing out EVs and PHEVs too and that car buyers are notoriously picky about their cars in terms of brand, design, model, style, etc. . . Teslas, despite their cool factor, are not for everyone. Just like Priuses or F-150s or Camrys or Accords aren't.
I don't think you understand how car production works. Car companies don't build every component of the vehicle, quite the opposite actually. Yet they manage their supply chain and utilize the competition within it to deliver quality vehicles at a profit. A battery pack is not a complex assembly and there are existing suppliers out there that can provide it so I doubt you'll see OEMs getting into making them. And before you say that the Gigafactory is a huge advantage remember that one of the limiting factors on Model 3 production so far has been production at the Gigafactory: https://electrek.co/2017/10/31/tesla-model-3-bottleneck-gigafactory-1-panasonic-ceo-battery/@ColoradoTribe: I agree EVs will do great things. However, Tesla has to still be around to benefit from that.
They have built amazing cars. They have big dreams for the future. I personally want them to be successful, I want to be able to buy a used Model 3 in the future. I want to be able to have solar with a battery back up. The problem is that investors have been pumping up the stock based on the dreams of what Tesla 'could be,' and not what it is today. Expectations have been set unrealistically high and Tesla has borrowed money based on those expectations.QuoteFive years from now it will not matter whether it took them an extra six months to get production up to 5k/week.
Actually, in reality, it might matter a lot. It could be the difference between Tesla producing 1 million cars/year in 5 years VS bankruptcy within 12 months. Tesla will need more funding soon. Bond investors don't live in the clouds, they don't trade based on dreams of what could be in 5-10 years. Bond investors like results, and they like those results printed on boring balance sheets and cash flow statements. If Tesla doesn't increase Model 3 production, FAST, like really FAST, then the next time they issue bonds they might not find willing investors. Tesla isn't Apple or Google, or even Ford. Those companies have cash on hand. They can handle shocks. They can recover from mistakes. Tesla is running on borrowed money and broken promises. Many great companies have fallen prey to big dreams... and too much leverage.
People have been predicting Tesla's imminent bankruptcy and demise for as long as I've been following the company/stock. I bought more common shares today and will sleep well tonight. Those aligned against this company and its disruption (not you personally) know that once the model 3 ramp is complete that Tesla becomes profitable and this narrative goes away, so they're milking it one last time. I see indication that the model 3 ramp has picked up to 1500 - 2000/week the past week or two. They'll likely hit 2500/week in the first of Q2, in plenty of time to satisfy bond investors. There was a chance of Tesla failing in the early going, the chances of such a failure now are very low IMO. We'll know for sure in a few years.
Sure people have predicted bankruptcy before but past performance cannot be extrapolated forward. This is clearly make-or-break time for Tesla. In the past investors have bailed them out, by giving them more cash. However, given that this is what the company has been shooting for, the high-volume, mass market EV, if they can be successful in ramping up production (and have enough demand) then they should be okay. If not, they may go bankrupt in the next 1-12 months.
However, even if they are successful at their ramp up, the main remaining potential worry that I see is that they will likely not be a top-5 automaker and thus cannot justify their market cap. Once they stop being a company valued on future potential and our desire to see a sustainable transportation future but on actual sales and revenue and profits and reliability and all the other boring stuff that most blue chip companies are judged on, then I see it as unlikely that their sales will be similar to the big car makers. Remember all the other guys are bringing out EVs and PHEVs too and that car buyers are notoriously picky about their cars in terms of brand, design, model, style, etc. . . Teslas, despite their cool factor, are not for everyone. Just like Priuses or F-150s or Camrys or Accords aren't.
I think you way over simplify how easy it will be for the ICE manufacturers to turn to EVs, while maintaining their ICE production. Its hard to serve tow master. I would also point out that Tesla's biggest advantage is not their cars per se, its there ability to produce enough batteries for mass produce EVs. Unless I missed it, Ford, and GM do not have a gigafactory to mass produce the Lithium Ion batteries.
As far as valuation, the stock price will almost always stay ahead of the valuation for disruptive growth companies. THat's okay with a buy and hold strategy. Tesla is no longer a "car company", it's an energy and transportation company. As I mentioned above, Tesla is tackling grid scale battery backup/stabiliztion, residential battery storage, commercial trucking, solar roofing shingles, manufacturing automation, self-driving cars, and more. Will Tesla hit a home run with all these, no, but chances are they'll succeed on multiple fronts.
I suggest, instead of going back and forth and likely not change either of our opinions, let's make some predictions and see what happens. Here are my predictions for 2018. Tesla will finish the year:
With at least one, possibly two profitable quarters
Sell over 250,000 vehicles (S, X, M3), which would be 150% YOY growth
Stock price over $400
PS - I also predict the M3 will be named Popular Mechanics 2018 Car of the Year :)
https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/g19605464/best-cars-2018/
Also - this was announced two days ago, before your "prediction" ;)
https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/g19605464/best-cars-2018/
@ColoradoTribe: I agree EVs will do great things. However, Tesla has to still be around to benefit from that.
They have built amazing cars. They have big dreams for the future. I personally want them to be successful, I want to be able to buy a used Model 3 in the future. I want to be able to have solar with a battery back up. The problem is that investors have been pumping up the stock based on the dreams of what Tesla 'could be,' and not what it is today. Expectations have been set unrealistically high and Tesla has borrowed money based on those expectations.QuoteFive years from now it will not matter whether it took them an extra six months to get production up to 5k/week.
Actually, in reality, it might matter a lot. It could be the difference between Tesla producing 1 million cars/year in 5 years VS bankruptcy within 12 months. Tesla will need more funding soon. Bond investors don't live in the clouds, they don't trade based on dreams of what could be in 5-10 years. Bond investors like results, and they like those results printed on boring balance sheets and cash flow statements. If Tesla doesn't increase Model 3 production, FAST, like really FAST, then the next time they issue bonds they might not find willing investors. Tesla isn't Apple or Google, or even Ford. Those companies have cash on hand. They can handle shocks. They can recover from mistakes. Tesla is running on borrowed money and broken promises. Many great companies have fallen prey to big dreams... and too much leverage.
People have been predicting Tesla's imminent bankruptcy and demise for as long as I've been following the company/stock. I bought more common shares today and will sleep well tonight. Those aligned against this company and its disruption (not you personally) know that once the model 3 ramp is complete that Tesla becomes profitable and this narrative goes away, so they're milking it one last time. I see indication that the model 3 ramp has picked up to 1500 - 2000/week the past week or two. They'll likely hit 2500/week in the first of Q2, in plenty of time to satisfy bond investors. There was a chance of Tesla failing in the early going, the chances of such a failure now are very low IMO. We'll know for sure in a few years.
Sure people have predicted bankruptcy before but past performance cannot be extrapolated forward. This is clearly make-or-break time for Tesla. In the past investors have bailed them out, by giving them more cash. However, given that this is what the company has been shooting for, the high-volume, mass market EV, if they can be successful in ramping up production (and have enough demand) then they should be okay. If not, they may go bankrupt in the next 1-12 months.
However, even if they are successful at their ramp up, the main remaining potential worry that I see is that they will likely not be a top-5 automaker and thus cannot justify their market cap. Once they stop being a company valued on future potential and our desire to see a sustainable transportation future but on actual sales and revenue and profits and reliability and all the other boring stuff that most blue chip companies are judged on, then I see it as unlikely that their sales will be similar to the big car makers. Remember all the other guys are bringing out EVs and PHEVs too and that car buyers are notoriously picky about their cars in terms of brand, design, model, style, etc. . . Teslas, despite their cool factor, are not for everyone. Just like Priuses or F-150s or Camrys or Accords aren't.
I think you way over simplify how easy it will be for the ICE manufacturers to turn to EVs, while maintaining their ICE production. Its hard to serve tow master. I would also point out that Tesla's biggest advantage is not their cars per se, its there ability to produce enough batteries for mass produce EVs. Unless I missed it, Ford, and GM do not have a gigafactory to mass produce the Lithium Ion batteries.
As far as valuation, the stock price will almost always stay ahead of the valuation for disruptive growth companies. THat's okay with a buy and hold strategy. Tesla is no longer a "car company", it's an energy and transportation company. As I mentioned above, Tesla is tackling grid scale battery backup/stabiliztion, residential battery storage, commercial trucking, solar roofing shingles, manufacturing automation, self-driving cars, and more. Will Tesla hit a home run with all these, no, but chances are they'll succeed on multiple fronts.
I suggest, instead of going back and forth and likely not change either of our opinions, let's make some predictions and see what happens. Here are my predictions for 2018. Tesla will finish the year:
With at least one, possibly two profitable quarters
Sell over 250,000 vehicles (S, X, M3), which would be 150% YOY growth
Stock price over $400
PS - I also predict the M3 will be named Popular Mechanics 2018 Car of the Year :)
https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/g19605464/best-cars-2018/ (https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/g19605464/best-cars-2018/)
I hope Tesla becomes the catalyst for positive transformative change.
I hope Tesla becomes the catalyst for positive transformative change.
I really think Elon Musk has changed the game. The problem for Tesla is that he was so successful, now 'real' car companies are piling into EVs. Companies that know how to mass produce quality cars.
Once Toyota, Ford, GM, VW, and the coming Chinese wave of EVs get rolling, I think Tesla has a huge problem. Not only are Tesla struggling to make their delivery targets of a measly few 100,000 cars / yr, they are still burning cash like crazy loosing huge amounts of money. Ford alone make over 30 times as many cars per year as Tesla while making billions in profits.
Tesla may transition to become a successful niche luxury EV brand (like Porsche is for ICV), but I wouldn't touch their stock with a bargepole.
I hope Tesla becomes the catalyst for positive transformative change.
I really think Elon Musk has changed the game. The problem for Tesla is that he was so successful, now 'real' car companies are piling into EVs. Companies that know how to mass produce quality cars.
Once Toyota, Ford, GM, VW, and the coming Chinese wave of EVs get rolling, I think Tesla has a huge problem. Not only are Tesla struggling to make their delivery targets of a measly few 100,000 cars / yr, they are still burning cash like crazy loosing huge amounts of money. Ford alone make over 30 times as many cars per year as Tesla while making billions in profits.
Tesla may transition to become a successful niche luxury EV brand (like Porsche is for ICV), but I wouldn't touch their stock with a bargepole.
Perhaps. I really think the Chinese (BYD, etc) are the only ones other than Tesla taking BEVs seriously.
Example: The Chevy Bolt has long waiting lists in several countries (ie, the entire 2018 allocation is waitlisted and they aren't listing for 2019) but production so far in 2018 is actually less than the average for 2017. Loafing along at ~300 cars per week, despite starting production about a year before Model 3.
By contrast, people are complaining that Model 3 production probably isn't 5x (or 10x) as high right now at 2,500 or 5,000 cars per week.
GM is supposed to be the mass market volume production expert. I wish they would show some signs of actually doing so though.
We should get some actual updated production numbers for both in the next few days (quarterly for Tesla, March for GM)
I hope Tesla becomes the catalyst for positive transformative change.
I really think Elon Musk has changed the game. The problem for Tesla is that he was so successful, now 'real' car companies are piling into EVs. Companies that know how to mass produce quality cars.
Once Toyota, Ford, GM, VW, and the coming Chinese wave of EVs get rolling, I think Tesla has a huge problem. Not only are Tesla struggling to make their delivery targets of a measly few 100,000 cars / yr, they are still burning cash like crazy loosing huge amounts of money. Ford alone make over 30 times as many cars per year as Tesla while making billions in profits.
Tesla may transition to become a successful niche luxury EV brand (like Porsche is for ICV), but I wouldn't touch their stock with a bargepole.
Perhaps. I really think the Chinese (BYD, etc) are the only ones other than Tesla taking BEVs seriously.
Example: The Chevy Bolt has long waiting lists in several countries (ie, the entire 2018 allocation is waitlisted and they aren't listing for 2019) but production so far in 2018 is actually less than the average for 2017. Loafing along at ~300 cars per week, despite starting production about a year before Model 3.
By contrast, people are complaining that Model 3 production probably isn't 5x (or 10x) as high right now at 2,500 or 5,000 cars per week.
GM is supposed to be the mass market volume production expert. I wish they would show some signs of actually doing so though.
We should get some actual updated production numbers for both in the next few days (quarterly for Tesla, March for GM)
Notionally an EV should be simpler.
Is this a sign, perhaps, that producing EVs is for whatever reason inherently harder than an ICE vehicle?
Or a sign that key resources are in short supply (e.g. cobalt?).
I would like to add to you people who are considering factors like commodity shortages, etc:
Tesla has one advantage other car companies don't have: connection to an industry (tech) who also, coincidentally, has much to gain from better batteries. The absolute key is battery technology. Tesla may come to have an edge in the technology (on some fundamental chemical level, manufacturing trade secrets, etc). If other automakers can't replicate this, they have a competitive advantage and their share premium would mean something.
On the other hand, there are a lot of "cult" investors. People who blindly believe what the CEO says (who I would not like to malign; he used his platform to convert skeptical country club republicans into electric-fans, I have seen this first-hand).
The stock, if I remember correctly, shot up twice: once after the success of the model s (from 3 billion to 30 billion) and again to around 60 billion. I believe the second rise might signify a fundamental breakthrough. Remember, there are a LOT of smart technologists (this means more than just someone who makes apps) in the bay area--semiconductors, etc. were refined here. Batteries are firmly in their camp. Innovation has to come from Silicon/Lithium Valley. Behind all of the noise of the technology industry, there ARE people actually discovering important things (I don't actually know if this is the case; I have relatives in the upper echelons of the industry who tell me a lot of vaporware exists, especially any life sciences done by consumer electronics companies). But I pray someone with the resources is working on these damn batteries, and that means taking big risks.
A few years ago, Tesla was just a car company willing to put big industry-standard 18650 batteries in cool-looking cars for educational purposes. If they have a battery other car companies don't, it's a different game.
What is your source of production at ~300 cars per week? Based on a quick scan of dealer lots around me, there is no shortage of Bolts and the sales nosedive that occurred in 2018 (compared to late 2017) is likely due to the end of a promotion offering employee pricing.I hope Tesla becomes the catalyst for positive transformative change.
I really think Elon Musk has changed the game. The problem for Tesla is that he was so successful, now 'real' car companies are piling into EVs. Companies that know how to mass produce quality cars.
Once Toyota, Ford, GM, VW, and the coming Chinese wave of EVs get rolling, I think Tesla has a huge problem. Not only are Tesla struggling to make their delivery targets of a measly few 100,000 cars / yr, they are still burning cash like crazy loosing huge amounts of money. Ford alone make over 30 times as many cars per year as Tesla while making billions in profits.
Tesla may transition to become a successful niche luxury EV brand (like Porsche is for ICV), but I wouldn't touch their stock with a bargepole.
Perhaps. I really think the Chinese (BYD, etc) are the only ones other than Tesla taking BEVs seriously.
Example: The Chevy Bolt has long waiting lists in several countries (ie, the entire 2018 allocation is waitlisted and they aren't listing for 2019) but production so far in 2018 is actually less than the average for 2017. Loafing along at ~300 cars per week, despite starting production about a year before Model 3.
By contrast, people are complaining that Model 3 production probably isn't 5x (or 10x) as high right now at 2,500 or 5,000 cars per week.
GM is supposed to be the mass market volume production expert. I wish they would show some signs of actually doing so though.
We should get some actual updated production numbers for both in the next few days (quarterly for Tesla, March for GM)
tesla-making-2000-model-3s-per-week
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-deliveries/tesla-making-2000-model-3s-per-week-report-idUSKCN1H91IC (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-deliveries/tesla-making-2000-model-3s-per-week-report-idUSKCN1H91IC)
I would like to add to you people who are considering factors like commodity shortages, etc:
Tesla has one advantage other car companies don't have: connection to an industry (tech) who also, coincidentally, has much to gain from better batteries. The absolute key is battery technology. Tesla may come to have an edge in the technology (on some fundamental chemical level, manufacturing trade secrets, etc). If other automakers can't replicate this, they have a competitive advantage and their share premium would mean something.
On the other hand, there are a lot of "cult" investors. People who blindly believe what the CEO says (who I would not like to malign; he used his platform to convert skeptical country club republicans into electric-fans, I have seen this first-hand).
The stock, if I remember correctly, shot up twice: once after the success of the model s (from 3 billion to 30 billion) and again to around 60 billion. I believe the second rise might signify a fundamental breakthrough. Remember, there are a LOT of smart technologists (this means more than just someone who makes apps) in the bay area--semiconductors, etc. were refined here. Batteries are firmly in their camp. Innovation has to come from Silicon/Lithium Valley. Behind all of the noise of the technology industry, there ARE people actually discovering important things (I don't actually know if this is the case; I have relatives in the upper echelons of the industry who tell me a lot of vaporware exists, especially any life sciences done by consumer electronics companies). But I pray someone with the resources is working on these damn batteries, and that means taking big risks.
A few years ago, Tesla was just a car company willing to put big industry-standard 18650 batteries in cool-looking cars for educational purposes. If they have a battery other car companies don't, it's a different game.
I saw something along these lines, that last year Tesla had locked up some pretty amazing R&D being done at a Canadian University, focused on tweaking the battery formula. With traces of exotic elements they could significantly impact battery life by avoiding the lithium dendrite formation problem, and had combined that with advanced battery testing technology.
Whether that's worth the huge Tesla premium the stock holds right now (even after the correction) is a great question that the OP's query seems to swing on. Certainly there are some big bears short selling the stock like crazy.
TSLA is having a bad month here. It’s down almost 30% and it seems like the bad news and negative sentiment is piling up. Can’t tell if it’s just a blip and will rebound or it’s on its way down further.
The bears shorting the stock are only looking at the numbers in my opinion, and not looking at the huge enthusiasm for the vehicles, the huge pre-orders, and the technology behind EVs.
The bears shorting the stock are only looking at the numbers in my opinion, and not looking at the huge enthusiasm for the vehicles, the huge pre-orders, and the technology behind EVs.
I've been a Tesla investor for about 4 years now and TSLA stock comprises about 5% of our net worth. My earliest stock purchases were made around $180/share. Tesla has been a good long term investment thus far and I believe it will continue to be so for years to come. In the grand scheme, for a long-term investor, the slow Model 3 ramp is really inconsequential. Five years from now it will not matter whether it took them an extra six months to get production up to 5k/week. We saw similar delays with the Model X and Model S ramps and both cars are leaders in there respective luxury classes with extremely high customer satisfaction and ratings.
The bottom line is electric vehicles have several key advantages over ICE vehicles. I have been a Nissan Leaf owner since 2013.
Nearly silent electric motor, most of what you hear is simply road noise.
Instant torque and superior acceleration.
No motor oil, gas, transmission fluid, radiator, etc. and very few moving parts mean reduced maintenance costs and the electric drive train can easily last 500k+ miles because you no longer have the wear and tear brought about by extreme heat and friction
Refuel at home overnight using a 110 or 220 outlet. I use a 110 outlet in my garage.
You can produce your own transportation fuel with solar panels (I've had a PV system since 2007)
Those saying that established ICE car manufacturers will simply crush Tesla are missing the point. Part of Elon's plan was to force the established majors to get serious about their EV offerings, and that is starting to happen. I suspect some will see the light too late and go bankrupt, some will go on to sell millions of EVs. Tesla doesn't need to dominate this new market. Even a 5% world market share would make Tesla wildely profitable. One also needs to consider that for the foreseeable future the supply of batteries will be the limiting factor in scaling EV production. I'm not aware of another domestic car manufacturer with plans to build a battery gigafactory like the one Tesla and Panasonic have outside Reno Nevada. That is a serious moat, along with the supercharger network. It doesn't matter how many EVs you can build if you don't have the batteries to support that production.
Lastly, Tesla is no longer just an EV company. To date, they are moving into the following areas:
Commercial trucking with the Tesla Semi, which has seen impressive deposits from several giants in the industry
Solar Roof Shingle/Panels
Grid-scale battery storage (see South Australisa grid back-up)
Autonomous Cars
Factory Automation Technology
Each of these alone could be a very profitable stand alone business. I'm not saying Tesla will come to dominate all these sectors, but I like investing in a company that is creating its own electrified ecosystem (production, storage, transportation) and has several avenues to profitability.
Tesla is one of the most shorted stocks in history. That can be frustrating at times as an investor, but it will also set-up a nice (2nd) short squeeze once the Model 3 ramp is confirmed and revenue from the Tesla energy side of the ledger ramps.
Is Tesla a sure thing? Of course not, no single stock is a sure thing, and Tesla is certainly on the higher risk side. Majorty of our investments are in broad based index funds. For me its simple. EVs are the future. Once scale is achieved, these cars will be cheaper to own, more fun to drive, easier to maintain, and are better for the planet. Tesla is best positioned to lead and profit from this revolution. I am prepared for the consequences if I'm wrong. At this point, I'm well up on my inititial investment and despite the prognostications of the shorts, the stock will never go to zero. This is not an internet startup. There are physical plants and other tangible assets. Absolute worst case would be a buy-out.
This is not investing advice. Do your own research and invest only what you are prepared to lose. I'd suggest starting with a test drive.
Tesla is the only automaker whose production and revenue are growing exponentially. Revenue and production will double again this year. 2000 Model 3s right now is a 100,000 car run rate plus 100,000 they already sell in S and X, and Model 3 production is going to grow the rest of the year. That's nearly $25 billion this year in revenue along with their energy business. That puts them at about 20-25% of the revenue of giants like Ford and GM after only 9 years of releasing their first car. They're in high growth mode. Where that ends, I don't know, but giants in industry fall all the time.
In financial terms, the stock is way overvalued, but the market is the market. You can't say X should be worth Z because of a ratio. Markets aren't rational. Casio and Rolex are both watches.
Tesla is the only automaker whose production and revenue are growing exponentially. Revenue and production will double again this year. 2000 Model 3s right now is a 100,000 car run rate plus 100,000 they already sell in S and X, and Model 3 production is going to grow the rest of the year. That's nearly $25 billion this year in revenue along with their energy business. That puts them at about 20-25% of the revenue of giants like Ford and GM after only 9 years of releasing their first car. They're in high growth mode. Where that ends, I don't know, but giants in industry fall all the time.
In financial terms, the stock is way overvalued, but the market is the market. You can't say X should be worth Z because of a ratio. Markets aren't rational. Casio and Rolex are both watches.
What is your source of production at ~300 cars per week? Based on a quick scan of dealer lots around me, there is no shortage of Bolts and the sales nosedive that occurred in 2018 (compared to late 2017) is likely due to the end of a promotion offering employee pricing.
And, to repeat an earlier post: Bolt production was never designed for the volumes of the Model 3 and the investment into manufacturing was significantly less. You're comparing apples to oranges and disparaging GM despite the fact that it looks like their factory has run at 100% of designed capacity while Tesla is still at a fraction of theirs.
GM delivers more cars in a month than Tesla does in a year while turning a profit. Talking negatively about their manufacturing capabilities while praising Tesla just makes you look silly.
tesla-making-2000-model-3s-per-week
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-deliveries/tesla-making-2000-model-3s-per-week-report-idUSKCN1H91IC (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-deliveries/tesla-making-2000-model-3s-per-week-report-idUSKCN1H91IC)
Is it bad to point out that achieving a "rate" of 2000/week is potentially the same as saying we made 20 cars in one hour (assuming a 100 hour work week, with shifts)? The statement doesn't say that they made 2000 cars in one week. (I can run at a 2 hr marathon pace, but don't ask me how long I can keep it up for). :)
Anyway, hopefully they are working through their issues and cranking out more cars to satisfy their customers. I've seen a couple of model 3s around town here the last couple of days.
Tesla is the only automaker whose production and revenue are growing exponentially. Revenue and production will double again this year. 2000 Model 3s right now is a 100,000 car run rate plus 100,000 they already sell in S and X, and Model 3 production is going to grow the rest of the year. That's nearly $25 billion this year in revenue along with their energy business. That puts them at about 20-25% of the revenue of giants like Ford and GM after only 9 years of releasing their first car. They're in high growth mode. Where that ends, I don't know, but giants in industry fall all the time.
In financial terms, the stock is way overvalued, but the market is the market. You can't say X should be worth Z because of a ratio. Markets aren't rational. Casio and Rolex are both watches.
The other thing that is growing rapidly is the amount of money they are losing, which is growing quite a bit faster than the revenues. At some point you have to make money, and the trend is in the wrong direction.
Tesla has a healthy profit margin on every car they sell. Tesla is not "losing" money. Tesla is plowing revenue back into the business to grow the supercharger network, develop the next line of vehicles (Model Y and Tesla Semi), ramp battery production, etc. This rapid growth does take a ton of investment, but Tesla is committed to rapid growth. If Tesla stopped growing today, they would have a nice profitable luxury EV business. That's not the mission. That said, Tesla will likely achieve profitability in the 3rd quarter, once they are churning out the higher end Model 3s at 4k+/week for an entire quarter.
Tesla has a healthy profit margin on every car they sell. Tesla is not "losing" money. Tesla is plowing revenue back into the business to grow the supercharger network, develop the next line of vehicles (Model Y and Tesla Semi), ramp battery production, etc. This rapid growth does take a ton of investment, but Tesla is committed to rapid growth. If Tesla stopped growing today, they would have a nice profitable luxury EV business. That's not the mission. That said, Tesla will likely achieve profitability in the 3rd quarter, once they are churning out the higher end Model 3s at 4k+/week for an entire quarter.
The logic is so tortured I can hear it screaming. Tesla is spending vastly more than it is making. The loses are increasing much faster than income.
By any reasonable standard, GAAP, common sense, or simply eye-balling the cash drawer, Telsa is losing money hand over fist. Now, maybe that's the plan. And maybe it will pay off in the end. But Tesla is losing huge amounts of money, and they are losing it at an increasing rate.
And by the way, back in 2016 Musk said Tesla would be profitable in 2017, instead Tesla racked up its biggest losses ever. Color me skeptical about the 3Q profits.
Tesla has a healthy profit margin on every car they sell. Tesla is not "losing" money. Tesla is plowing revenue back into the business to grow the supercharger network, develop the next line of vehicles (Model Y and Tesla Semi), ramp battery production, etc. This rapid growth does take a ton of investment, but Tesla is committed to rapid growth. If Tesla stopped growing today, they would have a nice profitable luxury EV business. That's not the mission. That said, Tesla will likely achieve profitability in the 3rd quarter, once they are churning out the higher end Model 3s at 4k+/week for an entire quarter.
The logic is so tortured I can hear it screaming. Tesla is spending vastly more than it is making. The loses are increasing much faster than income.
By any reasonable standard, GAAP, common sense, or simply eye-balling the cash drawer, Telsa is losing money hand over fist. Now, maybe that's the plan. And maybe it will pay off in the end. But Tesla is losing huge amounts of money, and they are losing it at an increasing rate.
And by the way, back in 2016 Musk said Tesla would be profitable in 2017, instead Tesla racked up its biggest losses ever. Color me skeptical about the 3Q profits.
Tesla has a healthy profit margin on every car they sell. Tesla is not "losing" money. Tesla is plowing revenue back into the business to grow the supercharger network, develop the next line of vehicles (Model Y and Tesla Semi), ramp battery production, etc. This rapid growth does take a ton of investment, but Tesla is committed to rapid growth. If Tesla stopped growing today, they would have a nice profitable luxury EV business. That's not the mission. That said, Tesla will likely achieve profitability in the 3rd quarter, once they are churning out the higher end Model 3s at 4k+/week for an entire quarter.
The logic is so tortured I can hear it screaming. Tesla is spending vastly more than it is making. The loses are increasing much faster than income.
By any reasonable standard, GAAP, common sense, or simply eye-balling the cash drawer, Telsa islosingspending money hand over fist. Now, maybe that's the plan. And maybe it will pay off in the end. But Tesla islosingspending huge amounts of money, and they arelosingspending it at an increasing rate.
And by the way, back in 2016 Musk said Tesla would be profitable in 2017, instead Tesla racked up its biggest losses ever. Color me skeptical about the 3Q profits.
If you do not understand or acknowledge the difference between investing revenue to build out infrastructure and conitune R&D and losing money because it costs more to make your product than you can sell it for, I'm not sure what to say. It's a fact that Tesla has positive margins on every car it sells. A modern car/eneregy company capable of eventually making a million cars a year does not materialize overnight and does not materialize at all without significant upfront cost/investment. This is not twisted logic, just economics 101. You have to spend money to make money, no business is profitable on day one. Some have longer ramps to profitablity. Even a lemonaide stand has to first buy the lemons. The larger and more complex the business, the longer the ramp to profitability, but also the bigger the upside (see Amazon).
Tesla has a healthy profit margin on every car they sell. Tesla is not "losing" money. Tesla is plowing revenue back into the business to grow the supercharger network, develop the next line of vehicles (Model Y and Tesla Semi), ramp battery production, etc. This rapid growth does take a ton of investment, but Tesla is committed to rapid growth. If Tesla stopped growing today, they would have a nice profitable luxury EV business. That's not the mission. That said, Tesla will likely achieve profitability in the 3rd quarter, once they are churning out the higher end Model 3s at 4k+/week for an entire quarter.
The logic is so tortured I can hear it screaming. Tesla is spending vastly more than it is making. The loses are increasing much faster than income.
By any reasonable standard, GAAP, common sense, or simply eye-balling the cash drawer, Telsa islosingspending money hand over fist. Now, maybe that's the plan. And maybe it will pay off in the end. But Tesla islosingspending huge amounts of money, and they arelosingspending it at an increasing rate.
And by the way, back in 2016 Musk said Tesla would be profitable in 2017, instead Tesla racked up its biggest losses ever. Color me skeptical about the 3Q profits.
If you do not understand or acknowledge the difference between investing revenue to build out infrastructure and conitune R&D and losing money because it costs more to make your product than you can sell it for, I'm not sure what to say. It's a fact that Tesla has positive margins on every car it sells. A modern car/eneregy company capable of eventually making a million cars a year does not materialize overnight and does not materialize at all without significant upfront cost/investment. This is not twisted logic, just economics 101. You have to spend money to make money, no business is profitable on day one. Some have longer ramps to profitablity. Even a lemonaide stand has to first buy the lemons. The larger and more complex the business, the longer the ramp to profitability, but also the bigger the upside (see Amazon).
I changed Telecaster's quote above to express my sentiment about the company. They are plowing money back into R&D and infrastructure but have a massively negative cash flow if you remove the financing cash flows. In my opinion they need to continue to ramp up the production and revenues to decrease their operating losses so they can continue to obtain financing to continue operations. It would be interesting to see what Tesla does if they are unable to find someone to underwrite any new stock or bond issues.
If you do not understand or acknowledge the difference between investing revenue to build out infrastructure and conitune R&D and losing money because it costs more to make your product than you can sell it for, I'm not sure what to say. It's a fact that Tesla has positive margins on every car it sells. A modern car/eneregy company capable of eventually making a million cars a year does not materialize overnight and does not materialize at all without significant upfront cost/investment. This is not twisted logic, just economics 101. You have to spend money to make money, no business is profitable on day one. Some have longer ramps to profitablity. Even a lemonaide stand has to first buy the lemons. The larger and more complex the business, the longer the ramp to profitability, but also the bigger the upside (see Amazon).
I might have more confidence if Elon Musk was focused instead of attempting to launch a dozen businesses at once.
Notionally an EV should be simpler.
Is this a sign, perhaps, that producing EVs is for whatever reason inherently harder than an ICE vehicle?
Or a sign that key resources are in short supply (e.g. cobalt?).
Cobalt per se shouldn't be enough to prevent production (there is cobalt, though prices have gone up) - securing a sufficient supply of batteries at an appropriate cost may well be an issue. Apparently Tesla's main cause of the slow ramp was battery pack production (they had plenty of cells on hand, the problem was assembling cells into packs with new automation not working right)
Going forward, cobalt should be less of an issue - almost all the cell manufacturers using a cobalt lithium chemistry are going to low-cobalt versions.
4. Lack of true competition: The only Tesla competitor right now is the Chevy Bolt. This is a $40k electric Chevrolet Sonic - a gas car that costs ~$15k. The Tesla Model 3 competes with a BMW 3-series - a gas car that costs ~35-80k. GM loses ~$10k per Bolt, and the design is done by LG - not GM.
I think that was my point though. There is no electric competition to Tesla right now, nor will there be anytime soon. Tesla is competing against gas cars, which is definitely an area with a lot of competition.I have bolded what you misremember, here. Also, Apple did come out with a cheap smartphone. However, if your argument is just that Tesla is a luxury car brand, then we shouldn't be discussing it too much on this forum!
The closest parallel I see is actually with Apple. Apple was not the first smartphone maker out there, and nobody thought they would succeed with such a wildly expensive phone. But people bought them.
And yes, there were other phone manufacturers out there that dwarfed Apple. And those competitors eventually did take 80% of marketshare and Apple took 20% - but only at great cost to themselves. As the market shifted towards smartphones, the other manufacturers suffered while Apple flourished.
Today, Apple has virtually all of the profit, and their smartphone business is still worth more than all of their competitor's smartphone businesses combined. In fact, there was an article a while back that said literally their only competitor that was turning a profit was Samsung - and they were just barely turning a profit. Most of their competitors were actually losing money holding onto marketshare.
Tesla doesn't need to come out with a cheap electric car for the masses any more than Apple needs to come out with a cheap smartphone. This is the thing that people just don't seem to appreciate. If Tesla can eventually produce even 5% of car sales worldwide (tending towards the more expensive part of the market), and retain a ~20% gross margin, the company will be worth far more than it is today.
PS - We are assuming the non-car part of their business is worth $0, which is also not accurate in the long term.
Those who say there's a good chance of bankruptcy for Tesla, please share your short position. I see options for sale where if Tesla goes bankrupt before Jan 17, 2020, you could multiply your money by ~10x. Certainly if you think there's a 70% chance of bankruptcy, please feel free to buy those. I will teach you how if you'd like.
But my suspicion (and this is the problem with online forums in general) is that those who support Tesla have skin in the game while those who are so very very negative have no skin in the game at all - but please prove me wrong!
Those who say there's a good chance of bankruptcy for Tesla, please share your short position. I see options for sale where if Tesla goes bankrupt before Jan 17, 2020, you could multiply your money by ~10x. Certainly if you think there's a 70% chance of bankruptcy, please feel free to buy those. I will teach you how if you'd like.
But my suspicion (and this is the problem with online forums in general) is that those who support Tesla have skin in the game while those who are so very very negative have no skin in the game at all - but please prove me wrong!
Disclosure: I hold 300 shares of Tesla, which is roughly ~15% of my net worth depending on the day.
Here's some food for thought for those who say other manufacturers will crush Tesla:
1. Batteries: Tesla's battery production in 2019 will likely exceed world production in 2016. Battery production issues alone will constrain total electric vehicle production possible
2. Dealerships: Dealerships anti-sell electric cars. They do not usually have more than 1 charging station to charge electric cars. Where will they get the money to install more? Their sales staff are not trained on electric cars. Dealerships make 2/3rds of their money from maintenance, so each electric car they sell will cannibalize their business model.
3. Charging network: While there are more non-Tesla charging stations out there, they are on a dozen different networks all with different payment methods. Plugshare helps to unify some of these issues. However, most non-Tesla charging stations have only one or two bays. They are frequently out of service, and there is no way to check status remotely. They cannot be relied upon. Also, their speeds are very inconsistent - a CCS fast charger could be capable of 40kW or 150kW for example. There is no unified way to look this info up.
4. Lack of true competition: The only Tesla competitor right now is the Chevy Bolt. This is a $40k electric Chevrolet Sonic - a gas car that costs ~$15k. The Tesla Model 3 competes with a BMW 3-series - a gas car that costs ~35-80k. GM loses ~$10k per Bolt, and the design is done by LG - not GM.
5. Lack of incentive: Most US car manufacturers are Truck and SUV manufacturers. For example, last month Ford produced more F-series pickup trucks (~80k) than all of their cars combined (~55k). They are talking about reducing production on their cars because of limited profitability.
6. Innovator's Dilemna: All of this is covered in 'The Innovator's Dilemna'. This is the same reason why Walmart did not create Amazon. IBM did not create Microsoft. Horse companies did not create cars. This type of transformational shift causes companies to retreat upmarket to their most profitable cars - not to try to challenge an unprofitable product. So Ford for example may choose to stop making cars (which aren't that profitable anyways) and focus on their profit centers (SUVs/Trucks), rather than invest money from those profit centers into 'unprofitable' electric cars. Doing otherwise will require a good explanation to shareholders (aka people who care mostly about short term earnings and dividends) - the same shareholders who have the power to fire the CEO.
There is a huge difference between selling a few thousand electric cars a month to enthusiasts and building a profitable business selling millions per year to the mainstream public. This transformational shift will be a lot more difficult for existing automakers than people currently appreciate. The mainstream buyer is not going to pay $40k for a Chevy Sonic.
A couple thoughts:
1. Batteries: - Yes, if no one adds battery capacity. There are quite a few EV battery manufacturers, I don't see how Tesla has a hammer-lock in this area. Producing batteries in house might give them an edge financially, but maybe not.
2. Dealerships: - Point taken about the service model, but Tesla can't own its own dealerships in every state, and legacy brands have several orders of magnitude more dealerships than Telsa. I grew up in a small town (around 15,000 people). To this day, there is a Ford, Chrysler, and GM dealership that have been there for decades.
3. Charging network: - I own an electric vehicle (Nissan Leaf). You are vastly over stating the problems with charging networks.
4. Lack of true competition: - I would modify this as lack of true competition...yet. Tesla smartly went after the luxury performance market. Performance, after all, is where EVs crush ICEs. But while the Chevy Bolt looks like the Chevrolet Sonic, it performs like a BMW. So it doesn't have the nameplate cache' but its close to the same thing. And it is flying off the shelves in Europe (badged as the Opel Ampera). The entire 2018 production is already sold out. Speaking of BMW, BMW does have a true EV right now (i3 and i3s). In the next two years or so Jaguar, Audi, Porsche, Austin Martin, and Mercedes have plans to roll out high-end EVs. Over the next year or two, Hyundai, Kia, and others will join Nissan, Chevrolet, Peugeot, VW, Fiat, Renault, Smart (already the best selling EV brand in Germany), and Ford on the lower end of the market. That's not counting Chinese automakers. That's true competition across the whole spectrum of the market.
5. Lack of incentive: - Lee Iacocca famously said "Mini cars mean mini-profits." But that's just as true for Tesla as it is for Ford. The difference is Ford, GM and Chrysler have conventional SUVs and mini-vans to drive profits. Tesla doesn't. Remember, a lot of this is driven by regulation. Nine states including the huge California market already have ZEV mandates, as do several European countries, and next year China will too. Manufactures must sell a certain percentage of ZEVs if they wish to be relevant. That's a pretty good incentive.
6. Innovator's Dilemna - There is another part of that too. Just because you are first, doesn't mean you succeed. The Wright Brothers invented the airplane, but they were never more than a bit player in manufacturing. The number of airlines that have gone bust is too long to mention. Most of the major carriers that exist today have been through bankruptcy, some more than once. Or shoot, look at auto companies. There were a number of manufactures before Ford or Chrysler entered the business. Most of them didn't survive. Or computers. Commodore and Radio Shack came out with PCs the same year as Apple. Only Apple survived and then just barely. Or cell phones. Not very long ago, Nokia and Blackberry completely dominated the market. Nokia sold to Microsoft and Blackberry is a pale shadow of its former self.
Point is, being first in the pool is no indicator of success. I wish you and Tesla the best, but I don't see any moat.
They need to scrap the battery pack and go directly to prismatic form cells to fully utilize the space in the pack. This is the ongoing bottleneck in their production. They need to figure out how to not have to hand build every battery pack.
Those are sales numbers, not production numbers. I would bet that days of inventory is increasing on the Bolt as I have no problem finding one on a lot right now and demand was likely pulled ahead due to promotions in late 2017.
What is your source of production at ~300 cars per week? Based on a quick scan of dealer lots around me, there is no shortage of Bolts and the sales nosedive that occurred in 2018 (compared to late 2017) is likely due to the end of a promotion offering employee pricing.
https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/
Note that when I posted, the March numbers were not available.
Add January + February, divide by 8.5 = 306 per week.
The problem with your quote from a previous post is it seems to lay the blame on them not being experts in mass production. You could make an argument that their initial targets were off but that is a failure of forecasting, not manufacturing. From all outside appearances the manufacturing group did exactly what was communicated and the line is performing as designed.QuoteAnd, to repeat an earlier post: Bolt production was never designed for the volumes of the Model 3 and the investment into manufacturing was significantly less. You're comparing apples to oranges and disparaging GM despite the fact that it looks like their factory has run at 100% of designed capacity while Tesla is still at a fraction of theirs.
GM delivers more cars in a month than Tesla does in a year while turning a profit. Talking negatively about their manufacturing capabilities while praising Tesla just makes you look silly.
Did I disparage GM in that post? Really? I suggest you re-read.
"GM is supposed to be the mass market volume production expert. I wish they would show some signs of actually doing so though."
This was in the context of other manufacturers not taking EV production seriously.
Your posting seems to totally support what I said. GM delivers more cars in a month than Tesla does in a year, yet didn't design the Bolt line for larger volumes nor work to ramp.
Hmm. Seems to totally agree with my premise that GM is not taking EVs seriously. They COULD produce more EVs, yet continue to fail to do so.
BTW, that Bolt production is shared with the Sonic. GM could readily shift production mix to be heavier on Bolt output.
March production was up slightly, bringing 1Q to an average rate of 336 Bolts per week. My original ~300 actually still stands (one significant digit)
I personally say buy the stock if you believe in the company, but not as an investment decision. Then again I I wouldn't never recommend any single single stock sine i have no idea. I want to buy a small amount of TSLA though. Like maybe 1% of my investable assets.
And jeese no need to be so mean.
This is the some of the worst advice I've ever heard in Investor Alley.
This is kind of off topic, but having a high share price is one factor in the company's credit rating. Having a better credit rating helps Tesla to get a better interest rate on debt. Some of the debt is short term debt used for inventory purposes. So in theory, having a higher stock price indirectly helps them pay a little less in interest than they otherwise would.
So even if they never issue another share, having a higher stock price can make the company more profitable/have more resources to reinvest in the company mission.
This is kind of off topic, but having a high share price is one factor in the company's credit rating. Having a better credit rating helps Tesla to get a better interest rate on debt. Some of the debt is short term debt used for inventory purposes. So in theory, having a higher stock price indirectly helps them pay a little less in interest than they otherwise would.
So even if they never issue another share, having a higher stock price can make the company more profitable/have more resources to reinvest in the company mission.
As an Evil Banker I have to disagree with this. Stocks split all the time and is seen as a GOOD thing for investors, though it cuts the price in half, a third, whatever ratio they split at. Share price is also a function of # of shares issued, so its kinda like saying a pizza sliced in 10 pieces is half as tasty as a pizza sliced in 5 pieces. Its really not a factor.
However, the converse is not true, as an OTC / penny stock is usually a good sign of a bad credit. Not coincidentally because they aren't making any money!
@ColoradoTribe: I agree EVs will do great things. However, Tesla has to still be around to benefit from that.
They have built amazing cars. They have big dreams for the future. I personally want them to be successful, I want to be able to buy a used Model 3 in the future. I want to be able to have solar with a battery back up. The problem is that investors have been pumping up the stock based on the dreams of what Tesla 'could be,' and not what it is today. Expectations have been set unrealistically high and Tesla has borrowed money based on those expectations.QuoteFive years from now it will not matter whether it took them an extra six months to get production up to 5k/week.
Actually, in reality, it might matter a lot. It could be the difference between Tesla producing 1 million cars/year in 5 years VS bankruptcy within 12 months. Tesla will need more funding soon. Bond investors don't live in the clouds, they don't trade based on dreams of what could be in 5-10 years. Bond investors like results, and they like those results printed on boring balance sheets and cash flow statements. If Tesla doesn't increase Model 3 production, FAST, like really FAST, then the next time they issue bonds they might not find willing investors. Tesla isn't Apple or Google, or even Ford. Those companies have cash on hand. They can handle shocks. They can recover from mistakes. Tesla is running on borrowed money and broken promises. Many great companies have fallen prey to big dreams... and too much leverage.
People have been predicting Tesla's imminent bankruptcy and demise for as long as I've been following the company/stock. I bought more common shares today and will sleep well tonight. Those aligned against this company and its disruption (not you personally) know that once the model 3 ramp is complete that Tesla becomes profitable and this narrative goes away, so they're milking it one last time. I see indication that the model 3 ramp has picked up to 1500 - 2000/week the past week or two. They'll likely hit 2500/week in the first of Q2, in plenty of time to satisfy bond investors. There was a chance of Tesla failing in the early going, the chances of such a failure now are very low IMO. We'll know for sure in a few years.
Sure people have predicted bankruptcy before but past performance cannot be extrapolated forward. This is clearly make-or-break time for Tesla. In the past investors have bailed them out, by giving them more cash. However, given that this is what the company has been shooting for, the high-volume, mass market EV, if they can be successful in ramping up production (and have enough demand) then they should be okay. If not, they may go bankrupt in the next 1-12 months.
However, even if they are successful at their ramp up, the main remaining potential worry that I see is that they will likely not be a top-5 automaker and thus cannot justify their market cap. Once they stop being a company valued on future potential and our desire to see a sustainable transportation future but on actual sales and revenue and profits and reliability and all the other boring stuff that most blue chip companies are judged on, then I see it as unlikely that their sales will be similar to the big car makers. Remember all the other guys are bringing out EVs and PHEVs too and that car buyers are notoriously picky about their cars in terms of brand, design, model, style, etc. . . Teslas, despite their cool factor, are not for everyone. Just like Priuses or F-150s or Camrys or Accords aren't.
I think you way over simplify how easy it will be for the ICE manufacturers to turn to EVs, while maintaining their ICE production. Its hard to serve tow master. I would also point out that Tesla's biggest advantage is not their cars per se, its there ability to produce enough batteries for mass produce EVs. Unless I missed it, Ford, and GM do not have a gigafactory to mass produce the Lithium Ion batteries.
As far as valuation, the stock price will almost always stay ahead of the valuation for disruptive growth companies. THat's okay with a buy and hold strategy. Tesla is no longer a "car company", it's an energy and transportation company. As I mentioned above, Tesla is tackling grid scale battery backup/stabiliztion, residential battery storage, commercial trucking, solar roofing shingles, manufacturing automation, self-driving cars, and more. Will Tesla hit a home run with all these, no, but chances are they'll succeed on multiple fronts.
I suggest, instead of going back and forth and likely not change either of our opinions, let's make some predictions and see what happens. Here are my predictions for 2018. Tesla will finish the year:
With at least one, possibly two profitable quarters
Sell over 250,000 vehicles (S, X, M3), which would be 150% YOY growth
Stock price over $400
PS - I also predict the M3 will be named Popular Mechanics 2018 Car of the Year :)
https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/g19605464/best-cars-2018/ (https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/g19605464/best-cars-2018/)
Sure, sounds like fun.
I predict Tesla won't sell 100,000 model 3's this year (and I think that will be very impressive and a win for them if they get close to 100k ). Remember that they were shooting for 500k this year.
I think TSLA won't end the year over $300, and there's a decent chance it'll go below $200 this year.
Remember there were only 200k EVs and PHEVs sold in the US in 2017. It's not as if there was a supply issue for these vehicles. It takes time for consumers to become aware of and wrap their minds around the changes that driving a plug-in car entails. It's not a switch that happens overnight.
I hope Tesla changes the planet.
Well, today was crazy: Elon with wild tweets that halted trading. Telsa going private with shareholders given the option of selling at $420/share or keeping equity in private company. Trading resumes and shares ended 11% up on the day."Considering" going private. Weasel words are important.
Basically if you buy any of those companies, you're playing the capital appreciation game and there's only one way to make money doing that; the stock has to move in the correct direction. In my opinion, that's too hard a game to win long term.
Well, today was crazy: Elon with wild tweets that halted trading. Telsa going private with shareholders given the option of selling at $420/share or keeping equity in private company. Trading resumes and shares ended 11% up on the day."Considering" going private. Weasel words are important.
$420/share would give them a market cap of 71 billion. Would love to know who the sucker is that is willing to pay that.
Well, today was crazy: Elon with wild tweets that halted trading. Telsa going private with shareholders given the option of selling at $420/share or keeping equity in private company. Trading resumes and shares ended 11% up on the day."Considering" going private. Weasel words are important.
$420/share would give them a market cap of 71 billion. Would love to know who the sucker is that is willing to pay that.
Well, today was crazy: Elon with wild tweets that halted trading. Telsa going private with shareholders given the option of selling at $420/share or keeping equity in private company. Trading resumes and shares ended 11% up on the day.
Space X....one of Tesla's better companies could take a hit as the DoD is not keen on publically breaking federal law by taking illegal drugs, so expect Musk's security clearance to be hit.
So for those that have commented on this thread, have we been gifted yet another amazing entry point?!?
$263
Current headline stories is all the debt Tesla has coming due and how there is a lack of faith in Tesla bonds as they are selling at a big discount.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
If no one ever bought another share of TSLA the price would crash, another automaker or private equity would be happy to scoop it up in a fire sale. Also I doubt they could continue to float outrageous new bond offerings if the price collapsed.This is the some of the worst advice I've ever heard in Investor Alley.
Did you read any of the threads about cryptocurrency? ;P
I lurk on another forum where lots of members have 3 orders in. Most of them are getting messages that if they take "this" car, they can get it immediately. The explanation is that so many cancellations are coming through that cars started without final payment are completed with no potential owner waiting. I'm sure there will be zero info coming from Tesla as they only release information that looks good for them. I can imagine that demand for the 3 is reaching that for the S and X, which has dwindled tremendously.I kinda wonder how Tesla will handle this transition from being a made to order manufacturer to having stock ready to ship as they don't have the traditional dealership model. It's easy for other OEMs to build cars that don't yet have a buyer because they push them to dealerships where they sit.
Here's the thing: At some point hopefully Tesla will sell as many vehicles and make as much profit as Ford does now.
But Tesla stock is priced as if it makes the same profit as Ford right now. That's a lot of growth premium priced into Tesla.
Yes, I agree, BUT Tesla is not just an electric car company. It is also a battery / solar power / energy solutions company. I still don't understand the valuation, but these are all markets that are potentially very high-growth in the very near future, and Tesla has established itself as a premium name-brand.
IMO all this goes to show why you should not invest in individual stocks. There is too much emotion, too much speculation, and too little information and in-depth knowledge involved.
FWIW, we can currently buy out options on TSLA expiring in January 2021 at the $50 strike price for about $6.88. In layman's terms, this is a wager that would yield a 627% return if TSLA goes bankrupt and shares go to zero and a 100% loss if that fails to happen.I don't understand why you wouldn't earn at least something if the price fell to anything between $0 and $43.12.
Could be historic buying opportunity.
I think they meant buying opportunity for put options! Getting rid of Musk might backfire if that's the strategy.Could be historic buying opportunity.
Get rid of Musk and perhaps...
I think they meant buying opportunity for put options! Getting rid of Musk might backfire if that's the strategy.Could be historic buying opportunity.
Get rid of Musk and perhaps...
I suppose this is common course with SEC investigations, but it does seem a bit ... well stupid.
"Your tweet was erroneous and manipulated the market" - SEC
Also SEC, "Pardon us while we park this truckload of TNT under TSLA and light it"
I expect he will be heavily fined and scolded for his tweets.The scolding option would appear to be off the table now. Reportedly (I don't know that is confirmed), the SEC offered (or Musk's attorney was about to propose) an impossibly sweet deal, already posted up-thread. Reportedly, Musk rejected (or backed out of) the proposal because he couldn't agree to "neither confirm nor deny" guilt.
I read that part of the plea was that he would get a 2 year ban from being Chairman of the board at Tesla.By itself, I might agree. But the original suit seeks to ban him from holding both director and officer positions in the future. That could conceivably be for life, and would affect both Tesla and Spacex. Taken in that context, I'd regard the offer as a mere slap on the wrist.
There was a time when people couldn't imagine Apple without Steve Jobs either, but he left the house in great enough shape that someone else could take over and take it to the next level.I think that is an unlikely comparison. For years before Job's final departure from Apple, he built an incredible stable of executive talent that has since proven more than capable of taking over, and soaring to new heights. And Apple was extremely profitable when he did finally pass the reigns to Cook.
Merely astonished that such a brilliant man is apparently oblivious to the most basic prohibitions against pointing a loaded revolver at his own foot before gleefully firing off all six rounds.
I'm quite sure that's a debatable point, and that a reasonable argument could assert that he's an idiot, viewed from one's specific perspective.Merely astonished that such a brilliant man is apparently oblivious to the most basic prohibitions against pointing a loaded revolver at his own foot before gleefully firing off all six rounds.Is he really brilliant, then?
I'm quite sure that's a debatable point, and that a reasonable argument could assert that he's an idiot, viewed from one's specific perspective.Merely astonished that such a brilliant man is apparently oblivious to the most basic prohibitions against pointing a loaded revolver at his own foot before gleefully firing off all six rounds.Is he really brilliant, then?
Founding one public company, and founding yet another that probably could go public, counts for a rare kind of brilliance that few others possess. I certainly don't possess that ability. But that's just my perspective.
As with just about any other human, Musk is strong in certain cognitive abilities, and weak in others. Musk's strengths are exceedingly rare, but his glaring weaknesses are also exceedingly rare; i.e., he is utterly blind to common sense judgements that most other folks take for granted at a fairly young age.
Is he brilliant? Is he an idiot? There's no point in arguing. He is clearly well endowed with both characteristics in large measure.
Is he fit to execute the fiduciary duties of one in his various roles? Personally, I don't believe that he is. But that's a question for the regulatory authorities to answer.
If we need to assign only a single label, I'll go out on a limb and suggest we could both agree that he is an idiot savant at the very least; but an extremely highly functional idiot savant who has been able to conceal his disabilities from the general public for quite a long time. At least until about month ago.
I would argue that the flight of executive talent from Tesla is evidence that his cognitive weaknesses extend much farther into the past than this recent climax with the SEC might suggest, and that escalating pressure on Musk created by having to fill in the gaps caused by that loss of talent is only a symptom of the underlying problem, not the cause of it. Loss of valuable talent is yet another problem, in my opinion, that Musk created for himself for no discernible reason.
Above all other disabilities, Musk appears utterly incapable of delegating, and utterly incapable of trusting anyone's decision but his own. There are a lot of positions at Tesla where Musk could add a sh*t-load of value; perhaps game-breaking value. But an unrestrained CEO and COB are not among those positions, in my humble opinion.
And let's face it. The BOD, as currently constructed, is nothing more than a Musk puppet. Tesla has no chance to fix itself without regulatory intervention. And that's not an assertion that Tesla could survive as a going concern in that or any other scenario, either. I, hopefully obviously, have my doubts that Tesla will survive at all.
No, no, no. Not right now. I'm not sure Tesla will rebound after news about the SEC.
Looks like someone changed his mind on the plea-Well, that's a surprise. Looks like Musk ran out of bullets before he ran out of toes. With an upgraded BOD, and salvaging his CEO position, maybe there's a sliver of hope for Tesla's survival after all.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/business/tesla-musk-sec-settlement.html
They have volunteers/owners helping out at the delivery centers. I can't see how such a loyal base will ever let the stock go to 0....if Elon starts a fundraiser to pay off the debt (or some p2p lending system) he is going to raise millions.
Sent from my Hisense A2T using Tapatalk
They have volunteers/owners helping out at the delivery centers. I can't see how such a loyal base will ever let the stock go to 0....if Elon starts a fundraiser to pay off the debt (or some p2p lending system) he is going to raise millions.
Tesla has been on the verge of bankruptcy for 10 years if you've been listening to the naysayers that long. There were times in the early going where it was a possibility. I think were past the possibility now. Tesla will likely turn a profit in Q3 or come very close at least. Q4 will be profitable. Tesla will produce close to a half million cars in 2019 using mostly existing infrastructure that was bought and paid for during the rapid growth and reinvestment of the past 5 years. People just don't get it. Anyone who owns an electric car will never buy another gas car in their life. EVs are the future and Tesla has a massive lead on the competition in both infrastructure and technology. But, no need to argue, we'll all get the answer to the thread's title question in the next 3-4 months.
I suppose this is common course with SEC investigations, but it does seem a bit ... well stupid.
"Your tweet was erroneous and manipulated the market" - SEC
Also SEC, "Pardon us while we park this truckload of TNT under TSLA and light it"
I think if he'd taken the settlement (at least the one that is reported), shareholders would have been fine with it. I imagine the stock might even be up on news that he settled. It's was a little slap on the wrist for something that should definitely be illegal* but mostly just dumb.
*If a CEO can just tweet crap like this out, it sets a bad precedent for any other company to just drive prices up and down anytime they want (and imagine how much the CEO's billionaire friends could profit).
I read that part of the plea was that he would get a 2 year ban from being Chairman of the board at Tesla.By itself, I might agree. But the original suit seeks to ban him from holding both director and officer positions in the future. That could conceivably be for life, and would affect both Tesla and Spacex. Taken in that context, I'd regard the offer as a mere slap on the wrist.There was a time when people couldn't imagine Apple without Steve Jobs either, but he left the house in great enough shape that someone else could take over and take it to the next level.I think that is an unlikely comparison. For years before Job's final departure from Apple, he built an incredible stable of executive talent that has since proven more than capable of taking over, and soaring to new heights. And Apple was extremely profitable when he did finally pass the reigns to Cook.
Tesla is not only unprofitable, they are facing an existential debt crisis in the very near future that is, at the very least, not going to be any easier to resolve by a CEO charged with fraud by the SEC.
Jobs never displayed the kind of bipolar instability that Musk shows. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think that's the kind of thing you can grow out of. Meanwhile, in terms of succession planning, Musk has only proven capable of driving high quality talent away. Those most capable of filling in for him have already left.
Personally, I don't see this dragging out for more than a few months; certainly not for years. Any delays will be more a matter of the court's schedule and existing case load than anything else. The facts are uncomplicated, easy for anyone to understand, and easy to prove, because much (all?) of the proof is already a matter of public record. Musk is the SEC's star witness; even if he chooses not to testify in the trial, he has already convicted himself in public.
Remember, the SEC's suit doesn't have to prove motive; only facts. If a motive can be proven, too, a criminal trial would land in the DOJ's lane, and that could conceivably be the next shoe to drop. A criminal trial might take longer to prosecute. In that worst-case scenario, though, Musk is likely already gone from Tesla and Spacex.
Disclosure: Never long (except via indexing). Never short. Merely astonished that such a brilliant man is apparently oblivious to the most basic prohibitions against pointing a loaded revolver at his own foot before gleefully firing off all six rounds.
Looks like someone changed his mind on the plea-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/business/tesla-musk-sec-settlement.html
Ring a bell?Scary parallels indeed. But one striking difference between those other fraudsters and Musk, is that if he does turn out to be a fraud, he'll have been the first one in history, whether intentionally or not, to virtually invite regulatory scrutiny before the house of cards collapsed under its own weight.
https://thereformedbroker.com/2018/09/28/the-nine-essential-conditions-to-commit-massive-fraud-2/
Ring a bell?Scary parallels indeed. But one striking difference between those other fraudsters and Musk, is that if he does turn out to be a fraud, he'll have been the first one in history, whether intentionally or not, to virtually invite regulatory scrutiny before the house of cards collapsed under its own weight.
https://thereformedbroker.com/2018/09/28/the-nine-essential-conditions-to-commit-massive-fraud-2/
The suit with the SEC is settled, but the SEC investigation is still ongoing. If there is more to the Tesla story than what we already know, it probably won't take very long before we find out.
Musk at it again with Twitter. This time calling the SEC the Shortseller Enrichment Commission and saying shorting stock should be illegal.
Seems like he’s testing the boundaries of his settlement with the SEC.
Musk at it again with Twitter. This time calling the SEC the Shortseller Enrichment Commission and saying shorting stock should be illegal.Simply astonishing.
Seems like he’s testing the boundaries of his settlement with the SEC.
I don't know if that means he's splitting from the board or what, but it's wild.
Oh, he's most certainly splitting from the board; at least for 3 years. That was part of his settlement with the SEC.Well, that was part of the settlement. Who knows if the settlement will even happen now... I guess it hadn't yet been confirmed. And now?
Fair point.Oh, he's most certainly splitting from the board; at least for 3 years. That was part of his settlement with the SEC.Well, that was part of the settlement. Who knows if the settlement will even happen now... I guess it hadn't yet been confirmed. And now?
For the sake of Tesla shareholders, I really hope that Musk uses the experiences of the last two months for a little introspection (or a lot). The settlement was crisis averted, but there had better be no more dumbass shenanigans.
As a corollary, if I was long Tesla I would use today's move as a chance to get out on a high note. The damn thing is just way too volatile for me. My wealth is my future, not a gamble on the whims of a single personality.
Musk at it again with Twitter. This time calling the SEC the Shortseller Enrichment Commission and saying shorting stock should be illegal.
Seems like he’s testing the boundaries of his settlement with the SEC.
Interesting how none of the naysayers showed up again after 3Q earnings.Your last post in the thread was August 7th. You want to talk about why you disappeared between then and now? :)
Interesting how none of the naysayers showed up again after 3Q earnings.Your last post in the thread was August 7th. You want to talk about why you disappeared between then and now? :)
I don't know if I was one of the naysayers exactly, but TSLA stock still comes with a hefty growth premium. GM and TSLA have about the same market cap, only GM has ten times the revenue. So it could be that at some point in the future TSLA will be the same size as the GM, but that's a lot of catching up to do.
I don't know if I was one of the naysayers exactly, but TSLA stock still comes with a hefty growth premium. GM and TSLA have about the same market cap, only GM has ten times the revenue. So it could be that at some point in the future TSLA will be the same size as the GM, but that's a lot of catching up to do.
Sure. I see some big differences:
Tesla has quite a few obvious paths to growth (Expanded production of existing models, entering the crossover market, entering the Semi market, entering the pickup truck market, energy storage growth, energy generation growth...) - while GM is big, I don't really see that much growth potential.
Tesla also has a track record of executing a significant growth rate - on average their annual rate of growth by number of cars is around 50%, starting in 2012 when they launched the Model S. Not totally consistent - last year was something like 35%, this year is going to be something around 100% if not more. GM output is relatively flat.
I don't know if I was one of the naysayers exactly, but TSLA stock still comes with a hefty growth premium. GM and TSLA have about the same market cap, only GM has ten times the revenue. So it could be that at some point in the future TSLA will be the same size as the GM, but that's a lot of catching up to do.
Sure. I see some big differences:
Tesla has quite a few obvious paths to growth (Expanded production of existing models, entering the crossover market, entering the Semi market, entering the pickup truck market, energy storage growth, energy generation growth...) - while GM is big, I don't really see that much growth potential.
Tesla also has a track record of executing a significant growth rate - on average their annual rate of growth by number of cars is around 50%, starting in 2012 when they launched the Model S. Not totally consistent - last year was something like 35%, this year is going to be something around 100% if not more. GM output is relatively flat.
I agree with all your points. Here's the thing: *If* GM is valued fairly, then Tesla needs maintain that growth rate for something like seven or eight more years just to get to the same position where GM is right now. It is certainly possible that could happen, but the stock price has already priced in all the growth. Ideally you want a stock with growth potential, but without the price premium. Easier said than done, I realize.
A company run by a person who can do THIS (see video in the link) is next-level, next-generation compared to GM.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0-pfzKbh2k
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0-pfzKbh2k)
I made the following predictions on this thread on March 29 of this year. I predicted Tesla will end 2018:
With at least one, possibly two profitable quarters - Third qtr profit confirmed.
Sell over 250,000 vehicles (S, X, M3), which would be 150% YOY growth - YTD 167,975 cars produced. Third qtr production was 80,142. So, Tesla need only produce 83,000 vehicles in Q4 to hit 250,00 for the year.
Stock price over $400 - Stock price up around $100 in the past few weeks. Suspect we'll approach ATH in coming weeks and climb over $400 with profitable Q4. Stock remains one of the most shorted stocks in the market, but I also suspect we'll see some capitulation soon.
My take on the Tesla Price, is that sentiment will prop the price up, which will stagnate around 320 + or - 10%, for as many years as it takes for the PE to get below 30.
Currently I think the share price is roughly driven like this
Cars 200
Energy storage 30
Solar 10
FSD 30
Space x / Elon Musk fandom 50
It's amazing how much bears hate Elon Musk, convinced he is a total fraud. /r/realtesla is like a moon landings cult or something!
I read an article about Elon Musk's terrible management style. And another article about the mishaps in delivering the Tesla 3 vehicles combined with problems with the vehicles.
After reading these articles I'm no longer enthralled by Elon Musk's foresight, I don't think he can really deliver what he claims he will, and I get a sense that the company is going to go bankrupt. Tesla will ultimately become known for causing the mainstream car companies to take electrification seriously.
Tesla is also caught between the anti-environmentalist sentiment of the White House and the effort by China's leadership to develop the energy technologies of the future in which only Chinese companies would be propped up by the Chinese government.
You get the "sense" that Tesla is going bankrupt, yet the company just turned a net profit in Q4 of $139M after turning a net profit of $312M in Q3 and the company has $3.7 in cash/cash equivalents at the end of 2018. They accomplished two consecutive profitable quarters while continuing to pump money into capex and RND (i.e., China gigafactory, more service centers, charging stations, battery research, etc.).
You get the "sense" that Tesla is going bankrupt, yet the company just turned a net profit in Q4 of $139M after turning a net profit of $312M in Q3 and the company has $3.7 in cash/cash equivalents at the end of 2018. They accomplished two consecutive profitable quarters while continuing to pump money into capex and RND (i.e., China gigafactory, more service centers, charging stations, battery research, etc.).
But they're also $10B in debt.
My view is the Elon is unable to focus. This Boring company is just stupid. The flame thrower that's not a flame thrower is fine if his goal is to be a youtuber. Is Space-X making money or is it yet another distraction? An buying Solar City seemed to me like just helping out the family with investors' money. Elon......stop trying to do everything. Do one thing. Or put good people in place and get the hell out of the way. I think his inability to take up the next shiny thing he finds will be the downfall of all the companies.
I hope you're right ColoradoTribe about Tesla's prospects.
But at this point Elon Musk is what's standing in the way of Tesla's success.
Tesla is succeeding because of all the dedicated engineers and management and other employees who don't get any publicity.
Elon Musk is just firing employees willy nilly based on scant evidence. Musk had a good idea, and started the company, but now he basically is a drain on the company.
Tesla media coverage is extraordinary.
Seekingalpha for instance generally pump out multiple articles on every news story, both bullish and bearish (but mostly bearish). This shotgun approach does have the benefit that probably at least one of the articles will be right, but look at the list of articles published by time, and you can often see entirely opposite forecast published within a few minutes.
Reddit is also interesting, the same story on 'teslamoters' and 'realtesla' using same data will have totally opposite spins.
The facts are, the company has targeting 30bn in revenue this year, with profit, and no raise. This combined with topping consumer satisfaction surveys, is not classic bankrupt trajectory.
Tesla media coverage is extraordinary.
Seekingalpha for instance generally pump out multiple articles on every news story, both bullish and bearish (but mostly bearish). This shotgun approach does have the benefit that probably at least one of the articles will be right, but look at the list of articles published by time, and you can often see entirely opposite forecast published within a few minutes.
Reddit is also interesting, the same story on 'teslamoters' and 'realtesla' using same data will have totally opposite spins.
The facts are, the company has targeting 30bn in revenue this year, with profit, and no raise. This combined with topping consumer satisfaction surveys, is not classic bankrupt trajectory.
As you suggest, coverage on seeking Alpha is overwhelmingly negative/bearish (4:1 ratio). Not only are the articles simply bearish, they are often riddled with cherry-picked data, fear-mongering, conjecture, faulty extrapolations, anecdotal bias, etc. Generally, very poor journalism and I feel sorry for anyone making Tesla investment decisions based on the Seeking Alpha news feed.
Overall, there is a huge media bias against Tesla. You have a rare American manufacturing and jobs success story, the start of a potential green transportation and energy storage revolution, and the coverage across the board is overwhelming negative these past few years (once Tesla started to achieve success in the form of market share).
Astute observers should be asking why is the media coverage turning increasing negative at a time when Tesla is achieving rapid growth and profitability. For me, there are two simply and logical reasons.
1) Tesla is disrupting not just one, but several huge industries, including oil production and refining, vehicle manufacturing, car dealerships, and fossil-fuel based utility companies.
2) These disrupted industries have huge advertising budgets, whereas Tesla does virtually no advertising.
The result? You have biased media protecting precious advertising revenue and powerful (politically and financially) industries willing to buy and produce news coverage critical of Tesla to protect their billions in profit by stopping or at least slowing Tesla's advance.
The famous Ghandi quote goes (paraphrasing), "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." In the early days Tesla was either laughed at or ignored. The same Elon (warts and all) who today is eviscerated in the media coverage, was a media darling. The minute Tesla went from a cute little green, feel-good story, to an actual disruptive threat to the interests listed above, the coverage turned on a dime. Elon hasn't changed, Tesla is far-less likely to fail today than five years ago, so why the shift? Follow the money...
Every single thing you say in your post... I have seen stated in the same way... but about bitcoin, by bitcoin proponents (exactly the same theories on media bias, negativity, disruption, etc.). Even that Ghandi quote, it was a big staple amongst bitcoin supporters.Tesla media coverage is extraordinary.
Seekingalpha for instance generally pump out multiple articles on every news story, both bullish and bearish (but mostly bearish). This shotgun approach does have the benefit that probably at least one of the articles will be right, but look at the list of articles published by time, and you can often see entirely opposite forecast published within a few minutes.
Reddit is also interesting, the same story on 'teslamoters' and 'realtesla' using same data will have totally opposite spins.
The facts are, the company has targeting 30bn in revenue this year, with profit, and no raise. This combined with topping consumer satisfaction surveys, is not classic bankrupt trajectory.
As you suggest, coverage on seeking Alpha is overwhelmingly negative/bearish (4:1 ratio). Not only are the articles simply bearish, they are often riddled with cherry-picked data, fear-mongering, conjecture, faulty extrapolations, anecdotal bias, etc. Generally, very poor journalism and I feel sorry for anyone making Tesla investment decisions based on the Seeking Alpha news feed.
Overall, there is a huge media bias against Tesla. You have a rare American manufacturing and jobs success story, the start of a potential green transportation and energy storage revolution, and the coverage across the board is overwhelming negative these past few years (once Tesla started to achieve success in the form of market share).
Astute observers should be asking why is the media coverage turning increasing negative at a time when Tesla is achieving rapid growth and profitability. For me, there are two simply and logical reasons.
1) Tesla is disrupting not just one, but several huge industries, including oil production and refining, vehicle manufacturing, car dealerships, and fossil-fuel based utility companies.
2) These disrupted industries have huge advertising budgets, whereas Tesla does virtually no advertising.
The result? You have biased media protecting precious advertising revenue and powerful (politically and financially) industries willing to buy and produce news coverage critical of Tesla to protect their billions in profit by stopping or at least slowing Tesla's advance.
The famous Ghandi quote goes (paraphrasing), "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." In the early days Tesla was either laughed at or ignored. The same Elon (warts and all) who today is eviscerated in the media coverage, was a media darling. The minute Tesla went from a cute little green, feel-good story, to an actual disruptive threat to the interests listed above, the coverage turned on a dime. Elon hasn't changed, Tesla is far-less likely to fail today than five years ago, so why the shift? Follow the money...
Every single thing you say in your post... I have seen stated in the same way... but about bitcoin, by bitcoin proponents (exactly the same theories on media bias, negativity, disruption, etc.). Even that Ghandi quote, it was a big staple amongst bitcoin supporters.Tesla media coverage is extraordinary.
Seekingalpha for instance generally pump out multiple articles on every news story, both bullish and bearish (but mostly bearish). This shotgun approach does have the benefit that probably at least one of the articles will be right, but look at the list of articles published by time, and you can often see entirely opposite forecast published within a few minutes.
Reddit is also interesting, the same story on 'teslamoters' and 'realtesla' using same data will have totally opposite spins.
The facts are, the company has targeting 30bn in revenue this year, with profit, and no raise. This combined with topping consumer satisfaction surveys, is not classic bankrupt trajectory.
As you suggest, coverage on seeking Alpha is overwhelmingly negative/bearish (4:1 ratio). Not only are the articles simply bearish, they are often riddled with cherry-picked data, fear-mongering, conjecture, faulty extrapolations, anecdotal bias, etc. Generally, very poor journalism and I feel sorry for anyone making Tesla investment decisions based on the Seeking Alpha news feed.
Overall, there is a huge media bias against Tesla. You have a rare American manufacturing and jobs success story, the start of a potential green transportation and energy storage revolution, and the coverage across the board is overwhelming negative these past few years (once Tesla started to achieve success in the form of market share).
Astute observers should be asking why is the media coverage turning increasing negative at a time when Tesla is achieving rapid growth and profitability. For me, there are two simply and logical reasons.
1) Tesla is disrupting not just one, but several huge industries, including oil production and refining, vehicle manufacturing, car dealerships, and fossil-fuel based utility companies.
2) These disrupted industries have huge advertising budgets, whereas Tesla does virtually no advertising.
The result? You have biased media protecting precious advertising revenue and powerful (politically and financially) industries willing to buy and produce news coverage critical of Tesla to protect their billions in profit by stopping or at least slowing Tesla's advance.
The famous Ghandi quote goes (paraphrasing), "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." In the early days Tesla was either laughed at or ignored. The same Elon (warts and all) who today is eviscerated in the media coverage, was a media darling. The minute Tesla went from a cute little green, feel-good story, to an actual disruptive threat to the interests listed above, the coverage turned on a dime. Elon hasn't changed, Tesla is far-less likely to fail today than five years ago, so why the shift? Follow the money...
I hope Tesla succeeds but based on this article in Wired Magazine I don't think Elon Musk is helping anymore.
Musk needs to step down and let the company be run by professionals.
https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-tesla-life-inside-gigafactory/
It's this article that soured me.
Here's an excerpt from the article:
Musk had demanded that his factories be automated as much as possible. But among the consequences of this extreme roboticization were delays and malfunctions.
At about 10 o’clock on Saturday evening, an angry Musk was examining one of the production line’s mechanized modules, trying to figure out what was wrong, when the young, excited engineer was brought over to assist him.
“Hey, buddy, this doesn’t work!” Musk shouted at the engineer, according to someone who heard the conversation. “Did you do this?”
The engineer was taken aback. He had never met Musk before. Musk didn’t even know the engineer’s name. The young man wasn’t certain what, exactly, Musk was asking him, or why he sounded so angry.
“You mean, program the robot?” the engineer said. “Or design that tool?”
“Did you fucking do this?” Musk asked him.
“I’m not sure what you’re referring to?” the engineer replied apologetically.
“You’re a fucking idiot!” Musk shouted back. “Get the fuck out and don’t come back!”
The young engineer climbed over a low safety barrier and walked away. He was bewildered by what had just happened. The entire conversation had lasted less than a minute. A few moments later, his manager came over to say that he had been fired on Musk’s orders, according to two people with knowledge of the situation. The engineer was shocked. He’d been working so hard. He was set to get a review from his manager the next week, and had been hearing only positive things. Instead, two days later, he signed his separation papers.
Then there are the problems of Model 3 delivery
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/15/business/tesla-model-3-buyers.html
Excerpt from the article (but I'll add that given Musk's behavior toward his employees it's not surprising that many aspects of the company are not working well - because when you fire your employees willy nilly you've chased out the competent ones that would have prevented these problems in the first place.)
"What Tesla’s ‘Delivery Logistics Hell’ Is Like for Model 3 Buyers"
Elon Musk has described Tesla’s troubles in getting cars to customers as “delivery logistics hell.”
Jim Fyfe knows what Mr. Musk, Tesla’s chief executive, was talking about.
A 44-year-old technology specialist at a bank in Jacksonville, Fla., Mr. Fyfe paid a $2,500 deposit in June to order a black Performance version of the Model 3 priced at $70,000.
He was given a delivery date in early September, but when he went to collect the car, he was told that it was still in California, Mr. Fyfe recalled. Two weeks later, with no update, Mr. Fyfe called the delivery center and was given bad news: His Model 3 had been involved in an accident in transit.
Days later, Mr. Fyfe asked for his money back, but quickly received an email saying Tesla had another car for him. Delivery was set for Oct. 27, but as Mr. Fyfe was heading to the rendezvous, his phone rang. A Tesla sales representative said this second car was no longer available because it, too, had been in an accident. A Tesla spokeswoman said that was a mistaken reference to the original car."
Not sure of your point here. The sun and lemons are both yellow and round therefore they are similar. The differences between Tesla and Bitcoin are obviously far greater than any coincidental similarities. I would never invest in Bitcoin.My point is that this thread seems to contain a lot of posts that are mostly emotional argument, and appeals to emotion, as opposed to true understanding and discussion of fundamentals (not as if it's easy to predict single stock's anyway...). Which happens to remind me of bitcoin discussions that I've seen. I just thought it was an interesting comparison, but I can also see how it might upset fanboys who think Tesla will "go to the moon" (it might, it might not - I couldn't care less myself).
Not sure of your point here. The sun and lemons are both yellow and round therefore they are similar. The differences between Tesla and Bitcoin are obviously far greater than any coincidental similarities. I would never invest in Bitcoin.My point is that this thread seems to contain a lot of posts that are mostly emotional argument, and appeals to emotion, as opposed to true understanding and discussion of fundamentals (not as if it's easy to predict single stock's anyway...). Which happens to remind me of bitcoin discussions that I've seen. I just thought it was an interesting comparison, but I can also see how it might upset fanboys who think Tesla will "go to the moon" (it might, it might not - I couldn't care less myself).
Their claims that they've solved level 5 autonomy are pretty unbelievable and in 1 year they'll have 1 million robo taxis on the road.Nope. The target was stated as end of next year. And they haven't claimed they have solved level 5 autonomy yet, just that they are on track to have it by end of 2020.
Their claims that they've solved level 5 autonomy are pretty unbelievable and in 1 year they'll have 1 million robo taxis on the road.Nope. The target was stated as end of next year. And they haven't claimed they have solved level 5 autonomy yet, just that they are on track to have it by end of 2020.
TSLA is done...if they are struggling in the best blockbuster economy of all time imagine what will happen to them in the upcoming slowdown when auto sales will fall off a cliff. This company is over in my opinion. In no way am I making judgements on the products itself which I think are very innovative, it's just that it isn't economically viable in a tighter monetary environment (considering it's been barely viable in a cheap money and credit environment), consider TSLA just a big experiment in technological excess which will be the first thing to go offline in a recession.
TSLA is done...if they are struggling in the best blockbuster economy of all time imagine what will happen to them in the upcoming slowdown when auto sales will fall off a cliff. This company is over in my opinion. In no way am I making judgements on the products itself which I think are very innovative, it's just that it isn't economically viable in a tighter monetary environment (considering it's been barely viable in a cheap money and credit environment), consider TSLA just a big experiment in technological excess which will be the first thing to go offline in a recession.
For $60 plus commission, you could buy a January 15, 2021 put contract that will be worth $1000 in the event of a TSLA bankruptcy that wiped out all equity.
If this scenario played out, a $60k investment would become $1M in less than 2 years.
TSLA is done...if they are struggling in the best blockbuster economy of all time imagine what will happen to them in the upcoming slowdown when auto sales will fall off a cliff. This company is over in my opinion. In no way am I making judgements on the products itself which I think are very innovative, it's just that it isn't economically viable in a tighter monetary environment (considering it's been barely viable in a cheap money and credit environment), consider TSLA just a big experiment in technological excess which will be the first thing to go offline in a recession.
For $60 plus commission, you could buy a January 15, 2021 put contract that will be worth $1000 in the event of a TSLA bankruptcy that wiped out all equity.
If this scenario played out, a $60k investment would become $1M in less than 2 years.
I’ve been selling puts every week for many many months now and paying the mortgage with it
TSLA is done...if they are struggling in the best blockbuster economy of all time imagine what will happen to them in the upcoming slowdown when auto sales will fall off a cliff. This company is over in my opinion. In no way am I making judgements on the products itself which I think are very innovative, it's just that it isn't economically viable in a tighter monetary environment (considering it's been barely viable in a cheap money and credit environment), consider TSLA just a big experiment in technological excess which will be the first thing to go offline in a recession.
selling naked puts. For example, I have several contracts that expire on Friday at a $170 strike
For $60 plus commission, you could buy a January 15, 2021 put contract that will be worth $1000 in the event of a TSLA bankruptcy that wiped out all equity.
If this scenario played out, a $60k investment would become $1M in less than 2 years.
I’ve been selling puts every week for many many months now and paying the mortgage with it
just to clarify, you are selling puts to later buy back at a lower price (like shorting puts)? or selling puts that you previously purchased for a gain?
I’m curious what the Colorado poster is thinking these days
I'm curious what happens if they do go bankrupt... some big company would HAVE to pounce on the opportunity to put 3rd party "universal" charging stations in place of the current tesla stations. If interstate gas stations can get away with highway robbery prices due to convenience, then why not charging stations? I'm not really sure where I'm going with this in the context of the original thread. I guess I just figure you could probably walk away without a complete loss should shtf and the company get bought. Maybe only an 80% loss.
Interesting to watch if nothing else, and they ARE responsible for getting the ball rolling again on electric cars, I suppose we should all be grateful for that much regardless of the outcome.
My general sense is that the stock price will be less than $200/share fairly soon ...Like right now!
I just looked at TSLA. Holy Crap! Under $200. So much for Elon's $420 predition.
Morgan Stanley says to expect TSLA to go to $10. Not down $10....to $10.
https://www.marketwatch.com/articles/tesla-stock-morgan-stanley-china-tariffs-51558445937?mod=mw_latestnews
I just looked at TSLA. Holy Crap! Under $200. So much for Elon's $420 predition.
Morgan Stanley says to expect TSLA to go to $10. Not down $10....to $10.
https://www.marketwatch.com/articles/tesla-stock-morgan-stanley-china-tariffs-51558445937?mod=mw_latestnews
Apparently Panasonic was still unable to supply as many Model 3 cells as Tesla wanted.
I thought the cells were coming from the gigafactory
This whole spiral is a result of 63000 cars delivered in Qtr 1. That's indicative of a demand problem problem and is unsustainable with their Op ex rate. Tesla is saying they had problems delivering to Europe and China in mass for the first time. I'm skeptical of that, but I suppose it's possible logistics is a big issue. I see a lot of bears predicting 75,000 cars delivered in Qtr 2, but Tesla guidance is on 90-100k. If they do 90k delivered, the stock will rebound. Not to over $300/share, imo, but with much stronger support above $200. The other big issue is the huge decline in S and X sales. Those were big cash cows for Tesla and are more important than a huge scale increase of the 3. If the 90k delivered doesn't have 25k of S and X, 90k cars definitely isn't profitable.
Tesla also points to 2019 being the first year when the EV credits step down which they say pulled many Q1 sales into Q4 last year. That being said as bad as Q1 was this year it is still the most sales that Tesla has ever had in a Q1.
I’m curious what the Colorado poster is thinking these days
I've been trading the volatility with swing shares. Holding all my core shares. Last bought 10 shares at $234 on Friday. As a long-term investor I'm not worried about one bad quarter. Bears/shorts counting on a demand issue will be disappointed. They've been making that argument for about 5 years. Meanwhile Tesla has yet to spend a dollar on paid advertising.
I’m curious what the Colorado poster is thinking these days
I've been trading the volatility with swing shares. Holding all my core shares. Last bought 10 shares at $234 on Friday. As a long-term investor I'm not worried about one bad quarter. Bears/shorts counting on a demand issue will be disappointed. They've been making that argument for about 5 years. Meanwhile Tesla has yet to spend a dollar on paid advertising.
I maintained my core shares all the way down to $180 through to a $328 close yesterday. I'm well into the green with my core position at this SP and started harvesting some gains above $300. Continued to deploy my swing trade shares as best I could over the past few months as well, buying with every over-reaction or negative news story that dipped the SP. I did catch a few falling knives that prevented me from buying as much as I would have liked at sub $200/share prices though. Analyzed all my trades YTD and I'm up about $3,000 on my swing trades, though its more accurate to say I lowered my cost basis by about $6/share, while I wait for the big gains.
I've enjoyed seeing the TSLAQ and short-seller crowd getting hammered the last few days. It will be very interesting how the stock performs on Monday. Was Friday a one-time price adjustment based on the earnings report or the start of the long awaited short squeeze. Congrats to those who rode out the trying times and the avalanche of FUD.
I’m curious what the Colorado poster is thinking these days
I've been trading the volatility with swing shares. Holding all my core shares. Last bought 10 shares at $234 on Friday. As a long-term investor I'm not worried about one bad quarter. Bears/shorts counting on a demand issue will be disappointed. They've been making that argument for about 5 years. Meanwhile Tesla has yet to spend a dollar on paid advertising.
I maintained my core shares all the way down to $180 through to a $328 close yesterday. I'm well into the green with my core position at this SP and started harvesting some gains above $300. Continued to deploy my swing trade shares as best I could over the past few months as well, buying with every over-reaction or negative news story that dipped the SP. I did catch a few falling knives that prevented me from buying as much as I would have liked at sub $200/share prices though. Analyzed all my trades YTD and I'm up about $3,000 on my swing trades, though its more accurate to say I lowered my cost basis by about $6/share, while I wait for the big gains.
I've enjoyed seeing the TSLAQ and short-seller crowd getting hammered the last few days. It will be very interesting how the stock performs on Monday. Was Friday a one-time price adjustment based on the earnings report or the start of the long awaited short squeeze. Congrats to those who rode out the trying times and the avalanche of FUD.
If one believes in the long term future of the company, what's the point of trading in and out of shares?
We're certainly not talking about a company where one can do fundamentals analysis and declare the shares overpriced at X and underpriced at Y.
Until it becomes consistently profitable, I would say no.
Right now betting on Tesla is almost the definition of a gamble. If it doesn't shape up it's finances, it will be bankrupt.
There's a lot of promises that it will shape up financially. So ultimately it boils down to - do you think they will?
I bought Tesla as a gamble but isn’t any non etf investment a waste in a way?...all eggs one basket with single companies?
Barry
I bought Tesla as a gamble but isn’t any non etf investment a waste in a way?...all eggs one basket with single companies?
Barry
If you don't know how to value companies, anything other than an index would be a gamble. Good companies consistently beat indexes. Take Disney for example. Disney has outperformed the SP 500 for decades. It likely will for quite some time. Disney as a company has provided a ton of value and Disney+ will increase the market cap probably 2x over the next few years. That's the value I assigned from my numbers. I've read the Simple Path to Wealth. It's a great book, and it's the best way to invest for most people, but it's not the best way to invest with ownership in a company in mind. To assume no one can beat the index, which JL Collins argues, is not only putting your mind in a box but it's demonstrably false. He's right that not everyone is Warren Buffett but there are millions of millionaires who own pieces of good companies accumulating wealth quite comfortably.
Tesla the company has an execution risk. Its potential future value is insane. I think it's a great piece of my portfolio.
As an internet elder, I recall reading the same rationales for Citigroup, AOL, Yahoo, and more.
Nice! I thought Nokia was going to be a huge company as they were the first mover in cell phones and were dominating the industry. Didn't turn out like I thought.
Nice! I thought Nokia was going to be a huge company as they were the first mover in cell phones and were dominating the industry. Didn't turn out like I thought.
No educated/sensible consumer would buy a Leaf today - maybe get a cheap lease deal, but that's about it.
No educated/sensible consumer would buy a Leaf today - maybe get a cheap lease deal, but that's about it.
Well I would disagree as I just bought a 2012 Leaf SL. I think it was a shrewd purchase. The car has 11 out of 12 bars of battery health remaining, has 36k miles, and is in pristine condition. The poor resale value of the car was to my advantage: I got a steal at $5600. My commute is 3 miles each way and on an average day I drive less than 15 miles. With a trickle charge overnight it suits my purposes perfectly.
And damn is it fun to drive.
It's taking me almost as much will power to not sell at $450 as it took to not sell at $180. Gotta stick to the investment thesis:
1) Is the future of energy and transportation battery electric and renewables?
2) Is Tesla the leader in EVs and battery tech?
I'll hold until the answer to either of those questions points towards no. The competition has yet to produce an EV that meets the price and specs of a 2013 Model S, let alone the 2019 variants. No other car company is building their own battery factory or a network of fast charging stations. There is no competition on the horizon (2 years out at least) and even then it doesn't matter, because a smaller percentage of a bigger pie is still more pie. Elon's goal is to push us towards a sustainable future and forcing other manufacturers to get serious about EVs is part of the plan.
It's taking me almost as much will power to not sell at $450 as it took to not sell at $180. Gotta stick to the investment thesis:
1) Is the future of energy and transportation battery electric and renewables?
2) Is Tesla the leader in EVs and battery tech?
I'll hold until the answer to either of those questions points towards no. The competition has yet to produce an EV that meets the price and specs of a 2013 Model S, let alone the 2019 variants. No other car company is building their own battery factory or a network of fast charging stations. There is no competition on the horizon (2 years out at least) and even then it doesn't matter, because a smaller percentage of a bigger pie is still more pie. Elon's goal is to push us towards a sustainable future and forcing other manufacturers to get serious about EVs is part of the plan.
Your thesis addresses the two keys points and is enough alone IMO to justify holding the stock, but as a little cherry on top Tesla has also managed to design a customized, top-notch autonomous driving chip in-house and unlike other companies pursuing autonomy, it has already racked up billions of fleet miles to train the neural net on edge cases through the company’s Dojo.
While I’m skeptical of Elon’s timeframes for FSD, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that Lidar is the wrong path given that he’s no stranger to it having personally helped design the Lidar system SpaceX uses to dock the Dragon to the ISS. Meanwhile, the competition is still working on OTA updates to their vehicles. I have no idea how autonomy will play out, but if Tesla does win that race as well, $450 per share will probably look quaint.
It's taking me almost as much will power to not sell at $450 as it took to not sell at $180. Gotta stick to the investment thesis:
1) Is the future of energy and transportation battery electric and renewables?
2) Is Tesla the leader in EVs and battery tech?
I'll hold until the answer to either of those questions points towards no. The competition has yet to produce an EV that meets the price and specs of a 2013 Model S, let alone the 2019 variants. No other car company is building their own battery factory or a network of fast charging stations. There is no competition on the horizon (2 years out at least) and even then it doesn't matter, because a smaller percentage of a bigger pie is still more pie. Elon's goal is to push us towards a sustainable future and forcing other manufacturers to get serious about EVs is part of the plan.
Your thesis addresses the two keys points and is enough alone IMO to justify holding the stock, but as a little cherry on top Tesla has also managed to design a customized, top-notch autonomous driving chip in-house and unlike other companies pursuing autonomy, it has already racked up billions of fleet miles to train the neural net on edge cases through the company’s Dojo.
While I’m skeptical of Elon’s timeframes for FSD, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that Lidar is the wrong path given that he’s no stranger to it having personally helped design the Lidar system SpaceX uses to dock the Dragon to the ISS. Meanwhile, the competition is still working on OTA updates to their vehicles. I have no idea how autonomy will play out, but if Tesla does win that race as well, $450 per share will probably look quaint.
Your wording, "cherry on top" is how I view FSD in my investment thesis. I have no doubt Tesla is the leader in this technology. I think having the best driver assist available currently at less than full autonomy is already a clear advantage and value add for any potential buyer. The reason I don't include FSD in my primary thesis is that for Tesla to realize a significant profit from this technology, regulators and governments are going to have to first approve it's use. I believe the stats suggesting the number of accidents and fatalities will be significantly reduced by FSD enabled cars. Here's the issue I see. You can shout from the rooftop the safety statistics and that the thousands of lives will be saved, but there will still be fatal accidents under FSD and many of those accidents will look different than the ones human drivers typically have due to the way the hardware and software "read" the road. Some of these accidents will look downright suicidal on the part of the machine and will be hard to stomach by the families of the deceased. I fear society will not see the forest for the trees. FSD can save nameless thousands each year, but a handful of tragic, high-profile and seemingly easily preventable deaths will drive the public narrative and perhaps force regulators to go against good science. Wouldn't be the first time.
It's taking me almost as much will power to not sell at $450 as it took to not sell at $180. Gotta stick to the investment thesis:
1) Is the future of energy and transportation battery electric and renewables?
2) Is Tesla the leader in EVs and battery tech?
I'll hold until the answer to either of those questions points towards no. The competition has yet to produce an EV that meets the price and specs of a 2013 Model S, let alone the 2019 variants. No other car company is building their own battery factory or a network of fast charging stations. There is no competition on the horizon (2 years out at least) and even then it doesn't matter, because a smaller percentage of a bigger pie is still more pie. Elon's goal is to push us towards a sustainable future and forcing other manufacturers to get serious about EVs is part of the plan.
Your thesis addresses the two keys points and is enough alone IMO to justify holding the stock, but as a little cherry on top Tesla has also managed to design a customized, top-notch autonomous driving chip in-house and unlike other companies pursuing autonomy, it has already racked up billions of fleet miles to train the neural net on edge cases through the company’s Dojo.
While I’m skeptical of Elon’s timeframes for FSD, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that Lidar is the wrong path given that he’s no stranger to it having personally helped design the Lidar system SpaceX uses to dock the Dragon to the ISS. Meanwhile, the competition is still working on OTA updates to their vehicles. I have no idea how autonomy will play out, but if Tesla does win that race as well, $450 per share will probably look quaint.
Your wording, "cherry on top" is how I view FSD in my investment thesis. I have no doubt Tesla is the leader in this technology. I think having the best driver assist available currently at less than full autonomy is already a clear advantage and value add for any potential buyer. The reason I don't include FSD in my primary thesis is that for Tesla to realize a significant profit from this technology, regulators and governments are going to have to first approve it's use. I believe the stats suggesting the number of accidents and fatalities will be significantly reduced by FSD enabled cars. Here's the issue I see. You can shout from the rooftop the safety statistics and that the thousands of lives will be saved, but there will still be fatal accidents under FSD and many of those accidents will look different than the ones human drivers typically have due to the way the hardware and software "read" the road. Some of these accidents will look downright suicidal on the part of the machine and will be hard to stomach by the families of the deceased. I fear society will not see the forest for the trees. FSD can save nameless thousands each year, but a handful of tragic, high-profile and seemingly easily preventable deaths will drive the public narrative and perhaps force regulators to go against good science. Wouldn't be the first time.
That's possible. The counterargument is that there are lots of jurisdictions and lots of regulatory bodies around the world, not to mention many just in the US alone. Some jurisdictions will decide to be early adopters of autonomy if for no other reason than to appear to be an innovative place. If/when the safety benefits are demonstrated with empirical data, pressure will mount on the laggard jurisdictions.
Speaking of which, I actually think certain jurisdictions may require FSD in certain use cases. For example, I imagine New Zealand might want to consider requiring tourists to use FSD when renting a car. It's a place with tons of tourism and relatively high traffic fatalities. Many locals are eager to get tourists out of the driver seat (so to speak) given that they're often unaccustomed to driving on the left side of the road, or on incredibly windy roads, are perhaps unsure of the rules pertaining to roundabouts, or maybe don't speak English (or Maori) so can't read the signage. It would seem relatively easy to push or force the car rental companies to make the switch, and if everyone expects it will save lives, who would fight back to defend the driving rights of tourists?
Might be time to close this thread. As the stock prices closes in on $500 (currently $491), I think its safe to say TSLA has turned out to be a good investment for any true long-term investor. I'll continue to hold based on my investment thesis above.
Is Tesla a good investment? Yes
Close the thread? Based on one quarter's worth of share movement, albeit quite dramatic? I expect a pullback in the share price soon on any bad news or perhaps just triggered by profit taking. In any event, although I'm bullish long-term, I really do appreciate hearing contrary points of view, especially from the mostly thoughtful and analytical people who make up this forum.
Close the thread? Based on one quarter's worth of share movement, albeit quite dramatic? I expect a pullback in the share price soon on any bad news or perhaps just triggered by profit taking. In any event, although I'm bullish long-term, I really do appreciate hearing contrary points of view, especially from the mostly thoughtful and analytical people who make up this forum.
Guess I should have used a smiley face when I posted that as it was meant tongue in cheek mostly. Obviously, ongoing discussion of the company and stock will be fun and productive. My real point is anyone who ever invested in this stock could close their position today and TSLA would have been a good investment regardless of when they entered. Thus, the title question is answered in the affirmative. As all stocks and companies eventually fall, the ongoing question is when might TSLA cease to be a good investment?
Close the thread? Based on one quarter's worth of share movement, albeit quite dramatic? I expect a pullback in the share price soon on any bad news or perhaps just triggered by profit taking. In any event, although I'm bullish long-term, I really do appreciate hearing contrary points of view, especially from the mostly thoughtful and analytical people who make up this forum.
Guess I should have used a smiley face when I posted that as it was meant tongue in cheek mostly. Obviously, ongoing discussion of the company and stock will be fun and productive. My real point is anyone who ever invested in this stock could close their position today and TSLA would have been a good investment regardless of when they entered. Thus, the title question is answered in the affirmative. As all stocks and companies eventually fall, the ongoing question is when might TSLA cease to be a good investment?
Please stop with the insane bitcoin comparisons. It really shows a depth of understanding. Does bitcoin manufacture products, own physical infrastructure, have employees, own patents, conduct R&D, put out quarterly reports that contain earnings, capex, debt etc., Is bitcoin subject to regulatory oversight from the SEC?
Yeah, gambling on bitcoin is the same as investing in a disruptive, growth-minded manufacturing company with tangible assets.
Close the thread? Based on one quarter's worth of share movement, albeit quite dramatic? I expect a pullback in the share price soon on any bad news or perhaps just triggered by profit taking. In any event, although I'm bullish long-term, I really do appreciate hearing contrary points of view, especially from the mostly thoughtful and analytical people who make up this forum.
Guess I should have used a smiley face when I posted that as it was meant tongue in cheek mostly. Obviously, ongoing discussion of the company and stock will be fun and productive. My real point is anyone who ever invested in this stock could close their position today and TSLA would have been a good investment regardless of when they entered. Thus, the title question is answered in the affirmative. As all stocks and companies eventually fall, the ongoing question is when might TSLA cease to be a good investment?
Please stop with the insane bitcoin comparisons. It really shows a depth of understanding. Does bitcoin manufacture products, own physical infrastructure, have employees, own patents, conduct R&D, put out quarterly reports that contain earnings, capex, debt etc., Is bitcoin subject to regulatory oversight from the SEC?
Yeah, gambling on bitcoin is the same as investing in a disruptive, growth-minded manufacturing company with tangible assets.
No one compared TSLA to bitcoin, only pointed out that the criteria for "good investment" should be more complex than asking if the price went up or not. Since you were being tongue in cheek I'm guessing you would actually agree with that.
It was implied that Tesla is no better an investment than bitcoin simply because both went up in value.
Might be time to close this thread. As the stock prices closes in on $500 (currently $491), I think its safe to say TSLA has turned out to be a good investment for any true long-term investor. I'll continue to hold based on my investment thesis above.
Is Tesla a good investment? Yes
Well, I mean based on that criteria, bitcoin was/is a good investment.
It was implied that Tesla is no better an investment than bitcoin simply because both went up in value.
This was not implied, you're reading something that is not there.Might be time to close this thread. As the stock prices closes in on $500 (currently $491), I think its safe to say TSLA has turned out to be a good investment for any true long-term investor. I'll continue to hold based on my investment thesis above.
Is Tesla a good investment? Yes
Well, I mean based on that criteria, bitcoin was/is a good investment.
I bolded the criteria Roland was referencing
the ongoing question is when might TSLA cease to be a good investment?
No educated/sensible consumer would buy a Leaf today - maybe get a cheap lease deal, but that's about it.
Well I would disagree as I just bought a 2012 Leaf SL. I think it was a shrewd purchase. The car has 11 out of 12 bars of battery health remaining, has 36k miles, and is in pristine condition. The poor resale value of the car was to my advantage: I got a steal at $5600. My commute is 3 miles each way and on an average day I drive less than 15 miles. With a trickle charge overnight it suits my purposes perfectly.
And damn is it fun to drive.
It was implied that Tesla is no better an investment than bitcoin simply because both went up in value.
This was not implied, you're reading something that is not there.Might be time to close this thread. As the stock prices closes in on $500 (currently $491), I think its safe to say TSLA has turned out to be a good investment for any true long-term investor. I'll continue to hold based on my investment thesis above.
Is Tesla a good investment? Yes
Well, I mean based on that criteria, bitcoin was/is a good investment.
I bolded the criteria Roland was referencing
Come on now, Roland brought up bitcoin in a thread dedicated to Tesla. Why else bring up bitcoin if not to imply some correlation with the comment, "Well, I mean based on that criteria, bitcoin was/is a good investment." He didn't say by that criteria any stock that goes up is a good investment or by that criteria Facebook is a good investment. There was no other reason to use bitcoin to make his point other than to put the two together and imply commonality. It's not the first time bitcoin has been used in this thread to try and tar Tesla as highly risky.
Sure there is. If they had said "any stock" or "facebook" their point would have been less clear. Let's try it out:
"Well, I mean based on that criteria, facebook was/is a good investment."
Rather ambiguous, right?
Bitcoin was a good example because it's generally regarded on this forum as an obviously bad investment or perhaps something that doesn't even qualify as an investment. Until you responded I thought it was clear that they were simply suggesting that the criteria of "did the price go up" is inadequate in judging the quality of an investment.
If there was a deeper meaning, hopefully they'll chime in and let us know.
I like Tesla (I like SpaceX better) but it was not a good investment.
I mean it has paid off well, but so has bitcoin. Neither was what I would consider a good investment though.
Come on now, Roland brought up bitcoin in a thread dedicated to Tesla. Why else bring up bitcoin if not to imply some correlation with the comment, "Well, I mean based on that criteria, bitcoin was/is a good investment." He didn't say by that criteria any stock that goes up is a good investment or by that criteria Facebook is a good investment. There was no other reason to use bitcoin to make his point other than to put the two together and imply commonality. It's not the first time bitcoin has been used in this thread to try and tar Tesla as highly risky.
Come on now, Roland brought up bitcoin in a thread dedicated to Tesla. Why else bring up bitcoin if not to imply some correlation with the comment, "Well, I mean based on that criteria, bitcoin was/is a good investment." He didn't say by that criteria any stock that goes up is a good investment or by that criteria Facebook is a good investment. There was no other reason to use bitcoin to make his point other than to put the two together and imply commonality. It's not the first time bitcoin has been used in this thread to try and tar Tesla as highly risky.
FWIW, I also interpenetrated your comment the same way.
Regardless, I think Telsa is highly risky. By any conventional metric, Tesla stock is very, very expensive. Which is to say there is a lot of future growth already priced into the stock.
Telsa as a stock reminds me of the dot com bubble. There were plenty of good tech companies that survived the crash, but didn't see their stock prices recover for many years. In some cases, it took a decade or more.
Growth stocks are always valued at future growth or else it wouldn't be investing.
Could Tesla fall short of expectations and future value, sure.
I don't buy the comparison to the dot-com bubble. While part of Tesla's valuation is based on software, they are first and foremost and manufacturing company for transportation, energy storage, and renewable energy products. There is intrinsic value to their manufacturing facilities, patents, inventory, supercharger network, etc. None of which you had with the insane dot-com bubble.
Where is the risk in a company that is selling every battery pack and vehicle it makes at a healthy margin with no competition in sight?
New ATH today, currently $544/share.
Making money while helping us transition to a sustainable energy economy and creating well-paid manufacturing jobs. Has there ever been a better win-win-win?
All companies are valued on the prospect of future earnings, right? Growth stocks typically enjoy a higher multiple because presumably they will grow faster. At some point, Telsa will become a mature company, like say, GM or Ford and its growth rate will necessarily slow down. However, it is already valued like GM and Ford combined, but with none of the profits. That is one helluva headwind.
I was careful to say "dot com survivors." Many perfectly fine companies with solid business models got spun up in the bubble too. Companies like Apple, Amazon, Ebay, Cisco Systems, Microsoft, etc. Microsoft, for example, had a dominating lead in operating systems (still does) and other software, and made healthy profits. Its stock price did not return to the dot com high until about 2015. Similarly Cisco Systems. Cisco invented the LAN, its products were ubiquitous, and had billions in revenue prior to the bust. Cisco stock has still not returned to its dot com high.
In short, a compelling, exciting company by itself doesn't justify a high stock valuation. Tesla has a great story, but has yet to record an annual profit. Companies with great stories and no profits are what defined the dot com bust.
Companies with great stories and noprofitspath to profitability are what defined the dot com bust.
Companies with great stories and noprofitspath to profitability are what defined the dot com bust.
FTFY. Stock prices should reflect the present value of expected future cash flows. If the market were concerned primarily with past profits, GE would still be the most valuable company in the world.
Companies with great stories and noprofitspath to profitability are what defined the dot com bust.
FTFY. Stock prices should reflect the present value of expected future cash flows. If the market were concerned primarily with past profits, GE would still be the most valuable company in the world.
I think what @Telecaster was saying is that it doesn't matter if a company has a path to profitability and spectacular growth, like Cisco did in 2000, if you buy it at a PE ratio so high that even if things go spectacularly well you'll lose, like investors in Cisco did.
I.e. As investors, we need our own path to profitability!
I think what @Telecaster was saying is that it doesn't matter if a company has a path to profitability and spectacular growth, like Cisco did in 2000, if you buy it at a PE ratio so high that even if things go spectacularly well you'll lose, like investors in Cisco did.
I.e. As investors, we need our own path to profitability!
Just so. It is entirely possible for a great company to be a lousy investment. The final returns are dependent upon the initial price.
Let's do a thought experiment. Let's assume that in 20 years TSLA will be a mature, profitable company that is a leader in its industry. Similar to say, Microsoft. Microsoft has a P/E of 30. Great company. Global leader, makes tons of money, just like we're hoping for TSLA. Now, lets calculate how fast earnings per share need to grow over the next 20 years for TSLA to get to a P/E of 30. I'll leave that exercise for the reader (it is simple enough to do, but make your own assumptions and see for yourself). Suffice to say, earnings per share would have to grow at almost a literally unbelievable rate for 20 years, just to justify today's stock price.
I think what @Telecaster was saying is that it doesn't matter if a company has a path to profitability and spectacular growth, like Cisco did in 2000, if you buy it at a PE ratio so high that even if things go spectacularly well you'll lose, like investors in Cisco did.
I.e. As investors, we need our own path to profitability!
Just so. It is entirely possible for a great company to be a lousy investment. The final returns are dependent upon the initial price.
Let's do a thought experiment. Let's assume that in 20 years TSLA will be a mature, profitable company that is a leader in its industry. Similar to say, Microsoft. Microsoft has a P/E of 30. Great company. Global leader, makes tons of money, just like we're hoping for TSLA. Now, lets calculate how fast earnings per share need to grow over the next 20 years for TSLA to get to a P/E of 30. I'll leave that exercise for the reader (it is simple enough to do, but make your own assumptions and see for yourself). Suffice to say, earnings per share would have to grow at almost a literally unbelievable rate for 20 years, just to justify today's stock price.
Suffice to say, earnings per share would have to grow at almost a literally unbelievable rate for 20 years, just to justify today's stock price.Of course the growth rate would sound unbelievable, because going from zero to any positive value leads to unbelievable sounding growth rates. But they sold almost a half a million cars last year at what $50k - $70k average cost? $35bn in revenue doesn't take much of a cost cutting to result in large net profits. $3bn in profits doesn't seem even unlikely in the next few years.
No justification for this stock price. An unprofitable company that's only "growing" because they're trying to expand geographically. U.S. sales are slowing down. Their Q4 18 production rate essentially matched FY19 - meaning they didn't grow in '19 (remember, '18 came with the caveats of "production hell" and "look at our Q4 production for our true production rate, yada yada).
No justification for this stock price. An unprofitable company that's only "growing" because they're trying to expand geographically. U.S. sales are slowing down. Their Q4 18 production rate essentially matched FY19 - meaning they didn't grow in '19 (remember, '18 came with the caveats of "production hell" and "look at our Q4 production for our true production rate, yada yada).
Your analysis seems pretty bizarre. Tesla produced about 50% more cars in 2019 than they did in 2018. Virtually all of which were produced in Fremont. This is in the ballpark of their long-term average growth rate, starting in 2012 with the launch of the Model S.
No justification for this stock price. An unprofitable company that's only "growing" because they're trying to expand geographically. U.S. sales are slowing down. Their Q4 18 production rate essentially matched FY19 - meaning they didn't grow in '19 (remember, '18 came with the caveats of "production hell" and "look at our Q4 production for our true production rate, yada yada).
Your analysis seems pretty bizarre. Tesla produced about 50% more cars in 2019 than they did in 2018. Virtually all of which were produced in Fremont. This is in the ballpark of their long-term average growth rate, starting in 2012 with the launch of the Model S.
They produced close to 90k vehicles in Q42018. Musk said to specifically look at Q4 because of production issues plauging them in '18. Annualized, that's basically what they produced in 2019.
No justification for this stock price. An unprofitable company that's only "growing" because they're trying to expand geographically. U.S. sales are slowing down. Their Q4 18 production rate essentially matched FY19 - meaning they didn't grow in '19 (remember, '18 came with the caveats of "production hell" and "look at our Q4 production for our true production rate, yada yada).
Your analysis seems pretty bizarre. Tesla produced about 50% more cars in 2019 than they did in 2018. Virtually all of which were produced in Fremont. This is in the ballpark of their long-term average growth rate, starting in 2012 with the launch of the Model S.
They produced close to 90k vehicles in Q42018. Musk said to specifically look at Q4 because of production issues plauging them in '18. Annualized, that's basically what they produced in 2019.
85,555 is "close to" 90k? That's the actual number produced in 2018Q4. 85,555. Not 90k. If it were 89,xxx and you said "close to 90k" - sure.
If you want to do a Q on Q comparison, it's 85,555 -> 104,891, which is a 23% increase.
No justification for this stock price. An unprofitable company that's only "growing" because they're trying to expand geographically. U.S. sales are slowing down. Their Q4 18 production rate essentially matched FY19 - meaning they didn't grow in '19 (remember, '18 came with the caveats of "production hell" and "look at our Q4 production for our true production rate, yada yada).
Their market cap topped $100bn, passing VOW as the 2nd highest market cap for an automaker. VOW delivered 10.8m vehicles last year. TSLA delivered 367k. This valuation is insane.
[malicious taunting]
No justification for this stock price. An unprofitable company that's only "growing" because they're trying to expand geographically. U.S. sales are slowing down. Their Q4 18 production rate essentially matched FY19 - meaning they didn't grow in '19 (remember, '18 came with the caveats of "production hell" and "look at our Q4 production for our true production rate, yada yada).
Your analysis seems pretty bizarre. Tesla produced about 50% more cars in 2019 than they did in 2018. Virtually all of which were produced in Fremont. This is in the ballpark of their long-term average growth rate, starting in 2012 with the launch of the Model S.
They produced close to 90k vehicles in Q42018. Musk said to specifically look at Q4 because of production issues plauging them in '18. Annualized, that's basically what they produced in 2019.
No justification for this stock price. An unprofitable company that's only "growing" because they're trying to expand geographically. U.S. sales are slowing down. Their Q4 18 production rate essentially matched FY19 - meaning they didn't grow in '19 (remember, '18 came with the caveats of "production hell" and "look at our Q4 production for our true production rate, yada yada).
Your analysis seems pretty bizarre. Tesla produced about 50% more cars in 2019 than they did in 2018. Virtually all of which were produced in Fremont. This is in the ballpark of their long-term average growth rate, starting in 2012 with the launch of the Model S.
They produced close to 90k vehicles in Q42018. Musk said to specifically look at Q4 because of production issues plauging them in '18. Annualized, that's basically what they produced in 2019.
Q4 2018 was a production hell specifically relating to the Model 3. In Q4 2018, they produced 61,394 Model 3's at breakneck pace to meet the sunset of the full federal tax credit. It wasn't designed to hold that rate at that time. Tesla specifically wrote in the Q4 2018 letter, they expect to have an annualized runrate of 7,000 Model 3s/week from Fremont by the end of 2019. In Q4 2019, they produced 86,958 Model 3s which is right in line with their guidance from January 2019.
Apparently, I'm also having a hard time reading.
If they can't convert more ICE owners over, their growth model is sunk.
Anecdotes aren't data.
And they're still building them in a tent lmao. If the answer long term was just popping up tents for your assembly lines, every automaker would do it.
What happened to the automated production (read: robots) Musk kept hyping 2-3 years ago?
Thought I recalled them claiming 10k per week? Then again, with Tesla, their targets are constantly moving/changing.
Look, they've obviously cornered the EV market. They're at like 80% of the BEV market in the US.
The question is - and it's one Catherine Wood / ARK seem to avoid - is will they actually grow in terms of market share of the overall auto market. EVs as a whole have flatlined around 2% of all auto sales worldwide. Tesla, globally, makes up about 17% of that 2%. If they can't convert more ICE owners over, their growth model is sunk.
I've got a friend who is in the Musk/Tesla cult, full on. His reasoning is that Tesla will just continue to double output every two years. That's simply something we haven't seen with them beyond getting through "production hell" with Model 3. And they're still building them in a tent lmao. If the answer long term was just popping up tents for your assembly lines, every automaker would do it. What happened to the automated production (read: robots) Musk kept hyping 2-3 years ago?
I've got a friend who is in the Musk/Tesla cult, full on. His reasoning is that Tesla will just continue to double output every two years. That's simply something we haven't seen with them beyond getting through "production hell" with Model 3. And they're still building them in a tent lmao.
How much less would Tesla be worth the day after Elon Musk dropped dead from overwork, or perhaps announced he wanted to shift focus on his rocket business so that he could walk on the moon within his lifetime?
For most corporations, the answer would be not much less. Is that the case for TLSA?
I've got a friend who is in the Musk/Tesla cult, full on. His reasoning is that Tesla will just continue to double output every two years. That's simply something we haven't seen with them beyond getting through "production hell" with Model 3. And they're still building them in a tent lmao.You've conclusively proven you have an axe to grind and are just flinging out bad data. What's your motivation here?
And that, my friends, is called "moving the goalposts."I've got a friend who is in the Musk/Tesla cult, full on. His reasoning is that Tesla will just continue to double output every two years. That's simply something we haven't seen with them beyond getting through "production hell" with Model 3. And they're still building them in a tent lmao.You've conclusively proven you have an axe to grind and are just flinging out bad data. What's your motivation here?
They haven't been profitable in any year, but ok.
And that, my friends, is called "moving the goalposts."I've got a friend who is in the Musk/Tesla cult, full on. His reasoning is that Tesla will just continue to double output every two years. That's simply something we haven't seen with them beyond getting through "production hell" with Model 3. And they're still building them in a tent lmao.You've conclusively proven you have an axe to grind and are just flinging out bad data. What's your motivation here?
They haven't been profitable in any year, but ok.
If you say so. Sorry I didn't type up a full dissertation on why "doubling output every two years" isn't sustainable. Companies can achieve a lot of great things if they just don't care about making an income for their investors. This is why Tesla is a cult stock.
I've got a friend who is in the Musk/Tesla cult, full on. His reasoning is that Tesla will just continue to double output every two years. That's simply something we haven't seen with them beyond getting through "production hell" with Model 3. And they're still building them in a tent lmao.You've conclusively proven you have an axe to grind and are just flinging out bad data. What's your motivation here?
They haven't been profitable in any year, but ok.
How much less would Tesla be worth the day after Elon Musk dropped dead from overwork, or perhaps announced he wanted to shift focus on his rocket business so that he could walk on the moon within his lifetime?
For most corporations, the answer would be not much less. Is that the case for TLSA?
Elon didn't want to be CEO of Tesla, but was forced into it eventually when they uncovered that Eberhard was blatantly lying to the board and investors about material items, and ordering other employees to lie to the board and investors.
He could drop dead, sure. I doubt he's giving up Tesla.
If you say so. Sorry I didn't type up a full dissertation on why "doubling output every two years" isn't sustainable. Companies can achieve a lot of great things if they just don't care about making an income for their investors. This is why Tesla is a cult stock.
You know, I don't have a dog in this fight. Outside of VTSAX holding some amount I'm too lazy to look up, I don't own any Tesla stock. I don't plan to own any. I barely own a car, and I have no plans to own another one in the near future, unless someone gives me a Tesla and I inexplicably don't immediately sell it. I don't give a crap about Tesla either way.
But when you respond to someone pointing out that, in fact, something you mocked (Tesla production doubling every couple of years) is TRUE by moving on to another critique, then it's hard to take you seriously.
It appears you have plenty of time to respond to this thread, too, so don't claim that you're being somehow misunderstood because of your brevity.
You could easily have said something like "wow, if they can keep doubling production that will be amazing - thanks for pointing that out. I was wrong. They still need to make consistent profits, though." That way you sound like a reasonable person, not just someone who dislikes Tesla because other people like it.
-W
I've got a friend who is in the Musk/Tesla cult, full on. His reasoning is that Tesla will just continue to double output every two years. That's simply something we haven't seen with them beyond getting through "production hell" with Model 3.
If you had actually read what I said and didn't have a dog in the fight, you'd note that I never said, "Tesla hasn't doubled production every 2 years like many claim." I never disputed it. Not sure why it's being brought up as a "gotcha." All I said was that they had trouble - they like to refer it as "production hell" - when attempting to scale up Model 3 production.
I've got a friend who is in the Musk/Tesla cult, full on. His reasoning is that Tesla will just continue to double output every two years. That's simply something we haven't seen with them beyond getting through "production hell" with Model 3. And they're still building them in a tent lmao.
Which of these sounds more true to those of you who've read this far into the thread?
- If Tesla is a GOOD investment at $770, then it was a GREAT investment at $470
- Tesla going up to $770 for reasons orthogonal to the fundamental value of its business do not mean it's a good investment.
Sometimes risky investments work out. Sometimes the market misprices things. It may be that the window to collect above-market returns has closed for Tesla because of this rapid increase.
Tesla is up about 150% since the start of this thread from March 2018....
Conjecture until Mid-February, but a couple of weeks ago, Larry Fink of Blackrock announced that it was starting to exit carbon based stocks and reallocate capital to sustainability. Blackrock has $7 trillion under management, but there aren't a lot of major plays in sustainability right now except Tesla. Being responsible for a $100 billion raise is consistent with their message, and if that's their long play, these levels would hold pretty well over time.
So far I own 6 shares of Tesla...I've made $3500. Should I take my profits now?
Th brokest, least financially sound person I've ever met told me 6 months ago that TSLA would be down around $10 in a year....next time he gives me a "hot tip" I'll know what to do!!
I remember that dry-ship spike.
But seriously, how do you capture that kind of gain? If you are truly buy-hold, then you wouldn't even log into your account to see that it's gone up 35X. It'd be back down to your basis by the time you check, and you'll just see that fantastic price on the annual high and feel like maybe you missed something.
Can someone tell me what % Tesla is of VTI? I had a go at Google and can't get that answer with my limited kungfu. Just curious how much I own.
If it's anything like my Vanguard total Stock Index Fund (VITSX) it's probably around 0.19%
Can someone tell me what % Tesla is of VTI? I had a go at Google and can't get that answer with my limited kungfu. Just curious how much I own.VTI is market cap weighted. It basically has the same fractional ownership stake in each of the companies it holds, so the percentage of VTI made up by Tesla grows as the value of Tesla goes up relative to the overall market. If the value of Tesla goes down relative to the overall market, the percentage of VTI made up by Tesla will also go down.
I'm thinking that perfect gap up with a doji candlestick on record volume yesterday was the top, at least for a while.
I sold back at $550 so I've got no skin in this game, but if I was still in it I would have sold it all yesterday.
Dammit, another 10% pop. I'm definitely feeling some FOMO here.
But the truth is I never would have held on this long, I probably would have sold at $300 and certainly by the time it doubled.
But the truth is I never would have held on this long, I probably would have sold at $300 and certainly by the time it doubled.
Not trying to make you feel worse FOMO, but if you're normally a buy-and-hold indexer I'd be surprised if you actually sold that early in the company's growth period. I'd guess that very few retail investors who own this stock and fit that bill are moving in and out of it at this point in the story, and that's partly what's supporting the stock price during this run-up.
I tease the Tesla bull in the office that he ought to trim his risk profile by moving into crypto-
I’m curious what the Colorado poster is thinking these days
I've been trading the volatility with swing shares. Holding all my core shares. Last bought 10 shares at $234 on Friday. As a long-term investor I'm not worried about one bad quarter. Bears/shorts counting on a demand issue will be disappointed. They've been making that argument for about 5 years. Meanwhile Tesla has yet to spend a dollar on paid advertising.
I maintained my core shares all the way down to $180 through to a $328 close yesterday. I'm well into the green with my core position at this SP and started harvesting some gains above $300. Continued to deploy my swing trade shares as best I could over the past few months as well, buying with every over-reaction or negative news story that dipped the SP. I did catch a few falling knives that prevented me from buying as much as I would have liked at sub $200/share prices though. Analyzed all my trades YTD and I'm up about $3,000 on my swing trades, though its more accurate to say I lowered my cost basis by about $6/share, while I wait for the big gains.
I've enjoyed seeing the TSLAQ and short-seller crowd getting hammered the last few days. It will be very interesting how the stock performs on Monday. Was Friday a one-time price adjustment based on the earnings report or the start of the long awaited short squeeze. Congrats to those who rode out the trying times and the avalanche of FUD.
No justification for this stock price. An unprofitable company that's only "growing" because they're trying to expand geographically. U.S. sales are slowing down. Their Q4 18 production rate essentially matched FY19 - meaning they didn't grow in '19 (remember, '18 came with the caveats of "production hell" and "look at our Q4 production for our true production rate, yada yada).
Your analysis seems pretty bizarre. Tesla produced about 50% more cars in 2019 than they did in 2018. Virtually all of which were produced in Fremont. This is in the ballpark of their long-term average growth rate, starting in 2012 with the launch of the Model S.
Wow this thread died 😁
Wow this thread died 😁
It’s as if everyone lost interest in the question about whether TSLA is a good investment as soon as the stock quit going up. Weird.
Anyone bought any (more) yet? I’m still waiting for further pullback. May never get it but I suspect we will
The gains are nice, but isn't the 30% decline in two weeks the sign of an investment that is not appropriate for many?
With $20 oil, I am probably looking at buying Tesla in the $250 area.
With $20 oil, I am probably looking at buying Tesla in the $250 area.
Even if oil were free, I'd rather drive an EV. The world will eventually realize this.
Dammit, another 10% pop. I'm definitely feeling some FOMO here.
I can't see the longstanding effects of COVID, namely a significant drop in commuters and therefore less gas consumption, being good for Tesla in the long term. Plus, it's a luxury car and people will not be buying luxury goods at the same rate for the short and medium term.
Q1 financials were strong somehow. Quite the roller coaster, but they laid out the path to $250 billion market cap in 2021 during the call with a production capacity of 1 million cars at 25% gross margin.
@elonmusk
Tesla stock price is too high imo
Didn't the SEC ban him from talking about stock prices?
The tweet was stupid, but didn’t violate his SEC settlement.
I know haters gonna hate, but...
1-yr return
VTI, -5%
TSLA, +198%
5-yr return
VTI, +30%
TSLA, +221%
10-yr return
VTI, +230%
TSLA, +3,094%
Is Tesla a good investment? Yeah, I think so.
Note, I’m not trashing VTI, which is my largest holding.
The tweet was stupid, but didn’t violate his SEC settlement.
I know haters gonna hate, but...
1-yr return
VTI, -5%
TSLA, +198%
5-yr return
VTI, +30%
TSLA, +221%
10-yr return
VTI, +230%
TSLA, +3,094%
Is Tesla a good investment? Yeah, I think so.
Note, I’m not trashing VTI, which is my largest holding.
You do realize you can cherry pick a bunch of stocks to make them look like incredible investments, right?
You do realize you can cherry pick a bunch of stocks to make them look like incredible investments, right?
Seems to me that those stocks you cherry-picked have clearly been good investments to their shareholders if those returns are accurate. Don't understand your point, though. ColoradoTribe has been arguing in the affirmative of the topic since the start of the thread 2 years ago. It's an irrefutable fact that shareholders since the start of the thread have benefited from Tesla stock appreciation.
Plenty of arguments and projections have been made in this thread for future valuations based on product and service growth so saying normal fundamentals don't apply, when stock prices reflect growth projections of institutional and retail investors, is disingenuous. I agree what's considered a good investment is subjective. You mentioned earlier that you don't buy individual stocks because all are too risky so by definition all stocks are cult stocks to you. Yet you know enough about TSLA to post short investment theory. Why?
The tweet was stupid, but didn’t violate his SEC settlement.
I know haters gonna hate, but...
1-yr return
VTI, -5%
TSLA, +198%
5-yr return
VTI, +30%
TSLA, +221%
10-yr return
VTI, +230%
TSLA, +3,094%
Is Tesla a good investment? Yeah, I think so.
Note, I’m not trashing VTI, which is my largest holding.
You do realize you can cherry pick a bunch of stocks to make them look like incredible investments, right?
1-year return:
ISEE: +146%
DRRX: +196%
EVER: +367%
5-year return:
NFLX: +356%
MKTX: +413%
10-year return:
AVGO: +1,182%
NFLX: +2,611%
MKTX: +3,131%
Of course, you can back test any # of stocks and show that they're good investments, far outpacing the major indices, etc.
As diggo noted, normal fundamentals don't apply to TSLA. It's basically a cult stock. Whether that makes it a "good" investment is subjective.
I didn't say you couldn't comment on Tesla. I want to understand your valuation. If it's just that it's too risky and you don't like the CEO,
Ok, but you posted information about fraud in the 10Q. Do you agree that their current financials are fraudulent?
The tweet was stupid, but didn’t violate his SEC settlement.
I know haters gonna hate, but...
1-yr return
VTI, -5%
TSLA, +198%
5-yr return
VTI, +30%
TSLA, +221%
10-yr return
VTI, +230%
TSLA, +3,094%
Is Tesla a good investment? Yeah, I think so.
Note, I’m not trashing VTI, which is my largest holding.
Tesla's price is way beyond fundamentals now. Irrational exuberance is driving the stock price. There's no way it is worth ~$145 billion. For that price you can own ALL of the following brands PLUS about $20B spare cash:
Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Volkswagen, Porsche, Lamborghini, Rolls Royce, Bentley, Mini, Bugatti, Skoda, many others.....
I really like what Elon is is doing and I hope Tesla succeeds. But huge competition is coming to the Electric Vehicle / Autonomous Driving space. Tesla's EV market share will diminish over time and there's not much you can do about it. The auto industry is a tough business to be in, you cannot monopolize it.
It's trading around $770 right now. I think it will be under $200 per share again in the not too distant future.
Which of the car brands you listed is doubling sales year over year? In fact, Tesla is the only domestic manufacturer with increasing sales these days. Investing in any of those traditional car companies in 2020 would be like investing in the country's largest livery stables in 1910, while laughing at the puny new car companies and their small sales. You'd be talking about how "Ford is sooo over valued compared to the livery companies, which sell 100 horses for every new fangled car." Ten years later you would have been broke. Horses to cars might seem like a bigger shift than ICE to EV, but fundamentally it will be the same and many of the current car brands will not survive. Tesla is priced higher than those companies because you invest based on future valuation and revenue and not the past.
Which of the car brands you listed is doubling sales year over year? In fact, Tesla is the only domestic manufacturer with increasing sales these days. Investing in any of those traditional car companies in 2020 would be like investing in the country's largest livery stables in 1910, while laughing at the puny new car companies and their small sales. You'd be talking about how "Ford is sooo over valued compared to the livery companies, which sell 100 horses for every new fangled car." Ten years later you would have been broke. Horses to cars might seem like a bigger shift than ICE to EV, but fundamentally it will be the same and many of the current car brands will not survive. Tesla is priced higher than those companies because you invest based on future valuation and revenue and not the past.
The part in bold is the whole key. You are absolutely right. Over the long term you are buying the expectation of future earnings.
So let's go back to the VW/Telsa comparison. Tesla of course has a higher market cap than VW. Now, Tesla hasn't yet posted a yearly profit, so we can't look backwards. But let's assume at some point Tesla makes the same number of cars as VW, and makes the same amount of money on each car. At that point they would be worth about the same amount of money. If Tesla grew sales by 25% a year, it would take them 15 years to reach VW's sales last year. And that's sales, Tesla would have to grow profits even faster.
Anything is possible I suppose, but you are paying an enormous premium for the expected growth.
So let's go back to the VW/Telsa comparison. Tesla of course has a higher market cap than VW. Now, Tesla hasn't yet posted a yearly profit, so we can't look backwards. But let's assume at some point Tesla makes the same number of cars as VW, and makes the same amount of money on each car. At that point they would be worth about the same amount of money. If Tesla grew sales by 25% a year, it would take them 15 years to reach VW's sales last year. And that's sales, Tesla would have to grow profits even faster.
Anything is possible I suppose, but you are paying an enormous premium for the expected growth.
The tweet was stupid, but didn’t violate his SEC settlement.
I know haters gonna hate, but...
1-yr return
VTI, -5%
TSLA, +198%
5-yr return
VTI, +30%
TSLA, +221%
10-yr return
VTI, +230%
TSLA, +3,094%
Is Tesla a good investment? Yeah, I think so.
Note, I’m not trashing VTI, which is my largest holding.
You do realize you can cherry pick a bunch of stocks to make them look like incredible investments, right?
1-year return:
ISEE: +146%
DRRX: +196%
EVER: +367%
5-year return:
NFLX: +356%
MKTX: +413%
10-year return:
AVGO: +1,182%
NFLX: +2,611%
MKTX: +3,131%
Of course, you can back test any # of stocks and show that they're good investments, far outpacing the major indices, etc.
As diggo noted, normal fundamentals don't apply to TSLA. It's basically a cult stock. Whether that makes it a "good" investment is subjective.
I'm not cherry picking. I've owned Tesla stock since 2013. It is the only individual stock I own. I could sell my holdings today and would have nearly tripled my investment. I didn't cherry pick my dates either, as 1, 5 and 10 years are pretty standard investment performance intervals. You don't like Tesla or think its a good investment. The return numbers suggest otherwise. No one is forcing you to invest, so not sure why people not invested in Tesla have such strong feelings about the company.
TSLA is worth more than every US auto maker and every US airline...combined
TSLA is worth more than every US auto maker and every US airline...combinedThere's dozens of companies larger than the entire airline industry: Oracle, McDonalds, Netflix, Intel, Visa, Apple... but it doesn't really mean anything about those companies.
I saw that Tesla passed Toyota to become the #1 car company in the world in market cap. Quite the milestone!
Bull case is 10+ years: technology disruption in transportation and energy. It's a long case. More near term: 1.5 million vehicles produced in 2022 from Fremont, China and Germany factories at 25%-30% margins possibly with new battery cell design ( to be detailed in Sept). Semi at scale and possibly cybertruck at scale as well. Some monetization timeline for FSD. Nationwide insurance service. 1000/week solar roof installations (no clue what margins are). ~$600b market cap Q1 2023.
Bear case is rearview fundamentals analysis or financial fraud/conspiracies. A lot of bears expect a lawsuit or audit to blow everything up. If they're right, there's no timeline for something like that investment wise.
Lol, "the bear case" does not require some kind of fraud/conspiracy, simply an acknowledgement that TSLA is currently vastly overvalued and that it will be many years - even assuming things go well for the company - before its current valuation makes sense. Which is I suppose what you're calling "rearview fundamentals analysis". I own a Tesla and love it, but I think you're nuts to believe it'll be $2k a year from now. But who knows, I think the current price is nuts too, so maybe you'll be right.
Lol, "the bear case" does not require some kind of fraud/conspiracy, simply an acknowledgement that TSLA is currently vastly overvalued and that it will be many years - even assuming things go well for the company - before its current valuation makes sense. Which is I suppose what you're calling "rearview fundamentals analysis". I own a Tesla and love it, but I think you're nuts to believe it'll be $2k a year from now. But who knows, I think the current price is nuts too, so maybe you'll be right.
Yeah, if you value based on historical financials and operations, it's overvalued. That's a rearview perspective and a legitimate bear case. It's the best way to value mature companies because there's very little change year to year. I am not of the opinion that Tesla is a mature company or should have a mature auto OEM multiple on projected earnings. What do you think it should be worth a year from now?
Bull case is 10+ years: technology disruption in transportation and energy. It's a long case. More near term: 1.5 million vehicles produced in 2022 from Fremont, China and Germany factories at 25%-30% margins possibly with new battery cell design ( to be detailed in Sept). Semi at scale and possibly cybertruck at scale as well. Some monetization timeline for FSD. Nationwide insurance service. 1000/week solar roof installations (no clue what margins are). ~$600b market cap Q1 2023.An analysis Elon Musk called "the best analysis to date" concluded the Tesla 3 cost $18,000 in materials and $10,000 in labor costs. In the U.S., it doesn't seem like Tesla 3s have much of a profit margin (if any, after paying for dealerships and the like).
I can't see a legitimate bull case for Tesla. Ignoring its ludicrous valuation, cars are not the same as big tech.
In technology being big is its own advantage - the more adopted Amazon/AWS is, or the more people are on Facebook then more more that confers benefits to the existing users, so scale becomes a very powerful moat.
In cars, mass production has the opposite effect. Nobody aspires to own a Ford or a Toyota because of what it says about the owner. In automobile market you aspire to luxury brands. Therefore as Tesla grows to justify the lofty market expectations that are placed on it and their models become more widespread, the lure of owning a Tesla loses its appeal. Success will be its own downfall.
Tesla may be the market leader in electric motors, but their know-how will be difficult to maintain in such a competitive industry.
I can't see a legitimate bull case for Tesla. Ignoring its ludicrous valuation, cars are not the same as big tech.
In technology being big is its own advantage - the more adopted Amazon/AWS is, or the more people are on Facebook then more more that confers benefits to the existing users, so scale becomes a very powerful moat.
In cars, mass production has the opposite effect. Nobody aspires to own a Ford or a Toyota because of what it says about the owner. In automobile market you aspire to luxury brands. Therefore as Tesla grows to justify the lofty market expectations that are placed on it and their models become more widespread, the lure of owning a Tesla loses its appeal. Success will be its own downfall.
Tesla may be the market leader in electric motors, but their know-how will be difficult to maintain in such a competitive industry.
If Tesla bets the company on the Cybertruck, then it could have problems. Ford sells 900k F-150 a year, and has an all-electric version planned. Elon Musk has targetted people like him with cars, which works. I don't think he'll figure out what F-150 and Ram pickup truck owners like... and Ford already has an all-electric F-150 in the works. Probably a steeper uphill battle than Tesla realizes.
If Tesla bets the company on the Cybertruck, then it could have problems. Ford sells 900k F-150 a year, and has an all-electric version planned. Elon Musk has targetted people like him with cars, which works. I don't think he'll figure out what F-150 and Ram pickup truck owners like... and Ford already has an all-electric F-150 in the works. Probably a steeper uphill battle than Tesla realizes.
Yep, only 650,000 preorders for the Cybertruck which will be far more rugged than any current thin-skinned painted pretty pickup truck. Definitely in trouble there...
"will be" sounds like counting chickens before they hatch. That leads to situations where someone throws an object at a window during it's first public appearance, and the window unexpectedly cracks. What you've heard, and what "will be", are two different things.Yep, only 650,000 preorders for the Cybertruck which will be far more rugged than any current thin-skinned painted pretty pickup truck. Definitely in trouble there...
If Tesla bets the company on the Cybertruck, then it could have problems. Ford sells 900k F-150 a year, and has an all-electric version planned. Elon Musk has targetted people like him with cars, which works. I don't think he'll figure out what F-150 and Ram pickup truck owners like... and Ford already has an all-electric F-150 in the works. Probably a steeper uphill battle than Tesla realizes.
If Tesla bets the company on the Cybertruck, then it could have problems. Ford sells 900k F-150 a year, and has an all-electric version planned. Elon Musk has targetted people like him with cars, which works. I don't think he'll figure out what F-150 and Ram pickup truck owners like... and Ford already has an all-electric F-150 in the works. Probably a steeper uphill battle than Tesla realizes.
Yep, only 650,000 preorders for the Cybertruck which will be far more rugged than any current thin-skinned painted pretty pickup truck. Definitely in trouble there...
The window breaking was a publicity coup, though. A crapton of people who would never have heard of the damn thing were talking about the cybertruck.
Now, I have no plans to buy one, but if there's an "any publicity is good publicity" moment, that was it.
-W
I can't see a legitimate bull case for Tesla. Ignoring its ludicrous valuation, cars are not the same as big tech.
In technology being big is its own advantage - the more adopted Amazon/AWS is, or the more people are on Facebook then more more that confers benefits to the existing users, so scale becomes a very powerful moat.
In cars, mass production has the opposite effect. Nobody aspires to own a Ford or a Toyota because of what it says about the owner. In automobile market you aspire to luxury brands. Therefore as Tesla grows to justify the lofty market expectations that are placed on it and their models become more widespread, the lure of owning a Tesla loses its appeal. Success will be its own downfall.
Tesla may be the market leader in electric motors, but their know-how will be difficult to maintain in such a competitive industry.
"will be" sounds like counting chickens before they hatch. That leads to situations where someone throws an object at a window during it's first public appearance, and the window unexpectedly cracks. What you've heard, and what "will be", are two different things.Yep, only 650,000 preorders for the Cybertruck which will be far more rugged than any current thin-skinned painted pretty pickup truck. Definitely in trouble there...
If Tesla bets the company on the Cybertruck, then it could have problems. Ford sells 900k F-150 a year, and has an all-electric version planned. Elon Musk has targetted people like him with cars, which works. I don't think he'll figure out what F-150 and Ram pickup truck owners like... and Ford already has an all-electric F-150 in the works. Probably a steeper uphill battle than Tesla realizes.
I would also point out that it's unclear if the Tesla 3 is profitable. Producing a lot of something that isn't profitable might not be sustainable. That may not be true for China and Germany, but the question is if Tesla can keep ahead of competition.
For the next few years, my guess is "yes". By the time they make Cybertrucks, who knows.
"will be" sounds like counting chickens before they hatch. That leads to situations where someone throws an object at a window during it's first public appearance, and the window unexpectedly cracks. What you've heard, and what "will be", are two different things.Yep, only 650,000 preorders for the Cybertruck which will be far more rugged than any current thin-skinned painted pretty pickup truck. Definitely in trouble there...
If Tesla bets the company on the Cybertruck, then it could have problems. Ford sells 900k F-150 a year, and has an all-electric version planned. Elon Musk has targetted people like him with cars, which works. I don't think he'll figure out what F-150 and Ram pickup truck owners like... and Ford already has an all-electric F-150 in the works. Probably a steeper uphill battle than Tesla realizes.
I would also point out that it's unclear if the Tesla 3 is profitable. Producing a lot of something that isn't profitable might not be sustainable. That may not be true for China and Germany, but the question is if Tesla can keep ahead of competition.
For the next few years, my guess is "yes". By the time they make Cybertrucks, who knows.
You do realize these arguments are years old and a decade old respectively?
Heard all the same about preorders on the Model 3, and here it is the best selling EV in the world. The "Tesla isn't profitable" has been going on longer (nevermind that the last 3 quarters they posted a profit, despite the pandemic shutdown...)
A company currently worth ~$246bn has eeked out $264m in earnings the last 9 months. Buy, buy, buy!
An analysis Elon Musk called "the best analysis to date" concluded the Tesla 3 cost $18,000 in materials and $10,000 in labor costs. In the U.S., it doesn't seem like Tesla 3s have much of a profit margin (if any, after paying for dealerships and the like).
I'm curious about this claim. The model 3 starts at (base price) $38,000. A cost of $28,000 puts it at a much higher profit margin than other automakers. I don't know a lot about the auto industry but a quick search on automaker's margins shows a 13% - 21% gross margin. The $10k profit on a $38k model 3 is 26% gross margin, and that's the base model. Higher models have higher margin.This does make the assumption that Tesla's ownership of the dealerships is a cost advantage over the main line auto maker model. It could very well be that independent dealerships operate significantly more efficiently than Tesla's dealer network.
Tesla owns their dealerships. That's also gross vs gross comparison, so for the main line auto makers the same costs (or more!) would apply.
I'm curious about this claim. The model 3 starts at (base price) $38,000. A cost of $28,000 puts it at a much higher profit margin than other automakers. I don't know a lot about the auto industry but a quick search on automaker's margins shows a 13% - 21% gross margin. The $10k profit on a $38k model 3 is 26% gross margin, and that's the base model. Higher models have higher margin.This does make the assumption that Tesla's ownership of the dealerships is a cost advantage over the main line auto maker model. It could very well be that independent dealerships operate significantly more efficiently than Tesla's dealer network.
Tesla owns their dealerships. That's also gross vs gross comparison, so for the main line auto makers the same costs (or more!) would apply.
You're claiming that profitability is an "argument" that can be settled once 10 years ago. That's not how capitalism works - companies need to show they're profitable constantly, not one time 10 years ago.You do realize these arguments are years old and a decade old respectively?"will be" sounds like counting chickens before they hatch. That leads to situations where someone throws an object at a window during it's first public appearance, and the window unexpectedly cracks. What you've heard, and what "will be", are two different things.Yep, only 650,000 preorders for the Cybertruck which will be far more rugged than any current thin-skinned painted pretty pickup truck. Definitely in trouble there...
If Tesla bets the company on the Cybertruck, then it could have problems. Ford sells 900k F-150 a year, and has an all-electric version planned. Elon Musk has targetted people like him with cars, which works. I don't think he'll figure out what F-150 and Ram pickup truck owners like... and Ford already has an all-electric F-150 in the works. Probably a steeper uphill battle than Tesla realizes.
I would also point out that it's unclear if the Tesla 3 is profitable. Producing a lot of something that isn't profitable might not be sustainable. That may not be true for China and Germany, but the question is if Tesla can keep ahead of competition.
For the next few years, my guess is "yes". By the time they make Cybertrucks, who knows.
Heard all the same about preorders on the Model 3, and here it is the best selling EV in the world. The "Tesla isn't profitable" has been going on longer (nevermind that the last 3 quarters they posted a profit, despite the pandemic shutdown...)
You're claiming that profitability is an "argument" that can be settled once 10 years ago. That's not how capitalism works - companies need to show they're profitable constantly, not one time 10 years ago.You do realize these arguments are years old and a decade old respectively?"will be" sounds like counting chickens before they hatch. That leads to situations where someone throws an object at a window during it's first public appearance, and the window unexpectedly cracks. What you've heard, and what "will be", are two different things.Yep, only 650,000 preorders for the Cybertruck which will be far more rugged than any current thin-skinned painted pretty pickup truck. Definitely in trouble there...
If Tesla bets the company on the Cybertruck, then it could have problems. Ford sells 900k F-150 a year, and has an all-electric version planned. Elon Musk has targetted people like him with cars, which works. I don't think he'll figure out what F-150 and Ram pickup truck owners like... and Ford already has an all-electric F-150 in the works. Probably a steeper uphill battle than Tesla realizes.
I would also point out that it's unclear if the Tesla 3 is profitable. Producing a lot of something that isn't profitable might not be sustainable. That may not be true for China and Germany, but the question is if Tesla can keep ahead of competition.
For the next few years, my guess is "yes". By the time they make Cybertrucks, who knows.
Heard all the same about preorders on the Model 3, and here it is the best selling EV in the world. The "Tesla isn't profitable" has been going on longer (nevermind that the last 3 quarters they posted a profit, despite the pandemic shutdown...)
Tesla has a forward P/E ratio between 256 (Yahoo Finance) and 435 (Morningstar), neither of which I would call profitable. What is Tesla being compared against that justifies those valuations?
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/key-statistics?p=TSLA
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnas/tsla/valuation
Buying TSLA shares is a great idea. But only if your goal is to learn what it feels like to have a stock you own go to zero in a bankruptcy. It's the single best short in a market full of overvalued companies. The unsecured bondholders will also lose most of their money (and bondholders have to get 100% of their money back before shareholders get a penny). I think the odds of bankruptcy this year are over 10% and over 70% by the end of next year. They will lose about $1 billion this quarter, and the same next quarter, and will lose at least $500 million per quarter even if they eventually can start making 5000 Model 3's per week (which I don't think they can do until next year, even if they are still in business).
The stock price got so out of control because of incredibly naive people who have no idea what they are doing with investing, but did listen to the media worship and maniacal proclamations from Musk (who routinely intentionally misleads investors in order to separate them from their cash). People are going to lose enormous amounts of money as reality hits. Don't be one of those people.
Your view depends on ignoring financial data from both Yahoo Finance and Morningstar?750k production runrate, $50k asp at 25% margins. Soon to be 1 m+ when Shanghai phase 2 is complete this winter. Berlin and Austin factories starting in 2021 (early and late respectively). + Energy. Those projections don't include moonshot products and services.You're claiming that profitability is an "argument" that can be settled once 10 years ago. That's not how capitalism works - companies need to show they're profitable constantly, not one time 10 years ago.You do realize these arguments are years old and a decade old respectively?"will be" sounds like counting chickens before they hatch. That leads to situations where someone throws an object at a window during it's first public appearance, and the window unexpectedly cracks. What you've heard, and what "will be", are two different things.Yep, only 650,000 preorders for the Cybertruck which will be far more rugged than any current thin-skinned painted pretty pickup truck. Definitely in trouble there...
If Tesla bets the company on the Cybertruck, then it could have problems. Ford sells 900k F-150 a year, and has an all-electric version planned. Elon Musk has targetted people like him with cars, which works. I don't think he'll figure out what F-150 and Ram pickup truck owners like... and Ford already has an all-electric F-150 in the works. Probably a steeper uphill battle than Tesla realizes.
I would also point out that it's unclear if the Tesla 3 is profitable. Producing a lot of something that isn't profitable might not be sustainable. That may not be true for China and Germany, but the question is if Tesla can keep ahead of competition.
For the next few years, my guess is "yes". By the time they make Cybertrucks, who knows.
Heard all the same about preorders on the Model 3, and here it is the best selling EV in the world. The "Tesla isn't profitable" has been going on longer (nevermind that the last 3 quarters they posted a profit, despite the pandemic shutdown...)
Tesla has a forward P/E ratio between 256 (Yahoo Finance) and 435 (Morningstar), neither of which I would call profitable. What is Tesla being compared against that justifies those valuations?
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/key-statistics?p=TSLA
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnas/tsla/valuation
If I believed Yahoo, I'd agree with you but it's a difficult way to invest in a company. Read the 10qs, follow their news, etc. and make your own valuations. I said above $2k/share by Q1 above. There has been one from Wedbush and one from Morgan Stanley at that price since. Maybe Yahoo is right but they give zero rational behind that projection. So it's meaningless to me.
Your view depends on ignoring financial data from both Yahoo Finance and Morningstar?
What company should Tesla be compared against to justify 256 and 435 P/E ratios?
You're claiming that profitability is an "argument" that can be settled once 10 years ago. That's not how capitalism works - companies need to show they're profitable constantly, not one time 10 years ago.
Tesla has a forward P/E ratio between 256 (Yahoo Finance) and 435 (Morningstar), neither of which I would call profitable. What is Tesla being compared against that justifies those valuations?
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/key-statistics?p=TSLA
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnas/tsla/valuation
I don't think forward P/E is a "backward looking instrument".Tesla has a forward P/E ratio between 256 (Yahoo Finance) and 435 (Morningstar) ...If low P/E is your jam then I don't think Tesla will ever be something you'll invest in. Nothing wrong with that value investing can be very profitable ...
This type of corporate investment is not unprecedented. Take a look at Amazon which still has a P/E of over 150 ...
P/E is a backward looking instrument ...
I ask repeatedly which company should Tesla be compared to, and the only answer I've gotten is Amazon. Tesla, the car maker, should be compared to Amazon, the online sales giant. Which again, to me makes no sense.
I ask repeatedly which company should Tesla be compared to, and the only answer I've gotten is Amazon. Tesla, the car maker, should be compared to Amazon, the online sales giant. Which again, to me makes no sense.
Okay, which other car manufacturers are very heavily or exclusively BEV with a growth rate similar to Tesla? Fossil cars are D-E-A-D going forward. There are bans all over the world - just with a delay to allow transition to cleaner technologies.
A: A few Chinese manufacturers, but they're not (individually) at Tesla's scale or market reach. They also don't have the battery development, stationary storage or autonomous driving experience Tesla does.
I don't think forward P/E is a "backward looking instrument".Tesla has a forward P/E ratio between 256 (Yahoo Finance) and 435 (Morningstar) ...If low P/E is your jam then I don't think Tesla will ever be something you'll invest in. Nothing wrong with that value investing can be very profitable ...
This type of corporate investment is not unprecedented. Take a look at Amazon which still has a P/E of over 150 ...
P/E is a backward looking instrument ...
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/forwardpe.asp
"Forward price-to-earnings (forward P/E) is a version of the ratio of price-to-earnings (P/E) that uses forecasted earnings for the P/E calculation."
I disagree that a forward P/E of 345 (average of Yahoo and Morningstar) is "low P/E". A hint that you're wrong is in your example, where even Amazon has a forward P/E of 149.25. Amazon is the #3 holding in Vanguard Growth ETF, with the other two being Microsoft (fwd P/E 34.1) and Apple (fwd P/E 25.5). I can keep pointing to growth stocks which have forward P/E below 345, if you want to argue about "value" vs "growth" stocks.
So I think you're wrong about P/E: Tesla's forward P/E ratio is extreme. You call everything below 345 "low P/E", even though almost all of the S&P 500 would be "low P/E" by that usage.
It's also interesting that nobody in favor of Tesla compares it to other automobile makers. I ask repeatedly which company should Tesla be compared to, and the only answer I've gotten is Amazon. Tesla, the car maker, should be compared to Amazon, the online sales giant. Which again, to me makes no sense.
So I think you're wrong about P/E: Tesla's forward P/E ratio is extreme. You call everything below 345 "low P/E", even though almost all of the S&P 500 would be "low P/E" by that usage.
It's also interesting that nobody in favor of Tesla compares it to other automobile makers. I ask repeatedly which company should Tesla be compared to, and the only answer I've gotten is Amazon. Tesla, the car maker, should be compared to Amazon, the online sales giant. Which again, to me makes no sense.
Ha! That post has aged very poorly. TSLA closed 3/26/2018 at $266.13, and is $1,594.30 as we speak. Hope nobody made big decisions based on that sentiment. Shorting anything is dangerous; shorting TSLA has been catastrophic.Buying TSLA shares is a great idea. But only if your goal is to learn what it feels like to have a stock you own go to zero in a bankruptcy. It's the single best short in a market full of overvalued companies. The unsecured bondholders will also lose most of their money (and bondholders have to get 100% of their money back before shareholders get a penny). I think the odds of bankruptcy this year are over 10% and over 70% by the end of next year. They will lose about $1 billion this quarter, and the same next quarter, and will lose at least $500 million per quarter even if they eventually can start making 5000 Model 3's per week (which I don't think they can do until next year, even if they are still in business).
The stock price got so out of control because of incredibly naive people who have no idea what they are doing with investing, but did listen to the media worship and maniacal proclamations from Musk (who routinely intentionally misleads investors in order to separate them from their cash). People are going to lose enormous amounts of money as reality hits. Don't be one of those people.
Tesla beat the over 70% odds of bankruptcy stacked against it last year. I wonder what the odds of bankruptcy are this year.
I'm questioning the entire way we talk about investing. It's a lot more like gambling than a lot of us would like to admit.
I'm questioning the entire way we talk about investing. It's a lot more like gambling than a lot of us would like to admit.
Really? Investing in individual stocks has always been likened to gambling by the vast majority of people here. To the point where the people who do pursue individual investments jokingly refer to themselves as "heretics".
Don't be one of those doofuses; invest in broad indexes. Pay attention to asset allocation, not individual investments. This seems pretty standard advice.
So no individual stock is "a good investment" compared to index funds? I'm entertaining the idea. It jives with decades of efficient frontier research. We just happen to live in a time when people are getting rich quick on bubble investments like bitcoin and TSLA.
We just happen to live in a time when people are getting rich quick on bubble investments like bitcoin and TSLA.Is there ever a time when that wasn't true? Sure the specific investments change but there's always been speculative high risk high potential reward investments. Most of them fizzle out, some don't.
We just happen to live in a time when people are getting rich quick on bubble investments like bitcoin and TSLA.Is there ever a time when that wasn't true? Sure the specific investments change but there's always been speculative high risk high potential reward investments. Most of them fizzle out, some don't.
For me personally, Tesla has accomplished 25-30 years of equivalent index investing in a few years time. I've just used my superpowers as naive accountant to forecast valuations of individual companies, resulting in me retiring years earlier compared to when I only bought an index. I'm a heretic just as likely to be called an idiot during 50% downturns (Jan 2019 - July 2019) or 65% downturns ( Feb 2020 - Mar 2020) or lucky like during large upswings such as now. We don't need to get into an individual stock vs index fund argument. Plenty of that elsewhere. Research your own securities. Or don't.
For me personally, Tesla has accomplished 25-30 years of equivalent index investing in a few years time. I've just used my superpowers as naive accountant to forecast valuations of individual companies, resulting in me retiring years earlier compared to when I only bought an index. I'm a heretic just as likely to be called an idiot during 50% downturns (Jan 2019 - July 2019) or 65% downturns ( Feb 2020 - Mar 2020) or lucky like during large upswings such as now. We don't need to get into an individual stock vs index fund argument. Plenty of that elsewhere. Research your own securities. Or don't.
Truly. I have a diversified portfolio of individual equities and I have more than twice what I would have if I indexed. I'm pretty lucky. Tesla is a part of that portfolio.
For me personally, Tesla has accomplished 25-30 years of equivalent index investing in a few years time. I've just used my superpowers as naive accountant to forecast valuations of individual companies, resulting in me retiring years earlier compared to when I only bought an index. I'm a heretic just as likely to be called an idiot during 50% downturns (Jan 2019 - July 2019) or 65% downturns ( Feb 2020 - Mar 2020) or lucky like during large upswings such as now. We don't need to get into an individual stock vs index fund argument. Plenty of that elsewhere. Research your own securities. Or don't.
Truly. I have a diversified portfolio of individual equities and I have more than twice what I would have if I indexed. I'm pretty lucky. Tesla is a part of that portfolio.
If you can make twice the market consistently with your investing/stock picking skills you should probably stop whatever you are doing and start a hedgefund and become a billionaire. That kind of skill is a billion dollar gift you should use it.
Otherwise, some less than charitable mustachians might attribute this as luck rather than skill.
For me personally, Tesla has accomplished 25-30 years of equivalent index investing in a few years time. I've just used my superpowers as naive accountant to forecast valuations of individual companies, resulting in me retiring years earlier compared to when I only bought an index. I'm a heretic just as likely to be called an idiot during 50% downturns (Jan 2019 - July 2019) or 65% downturns ( Feb 2020 - Mar 2020) or lucky like during large upswings such as now. We don't need to get into an individual stock vs index fund argument. Plenty of that elsewhere. Research your own securities. Or don't.
Truly. I have a diversified portfolio of individual equities and I have more than twice what I would have if I indexed. I'm pretty lucky. Tesla is a part of that portfolio.
If you can make twice the market consistently with your investing/stock picking skills you should probably stop whatever you are doing and start a hedgefund and become a billionaire. That kind of skill is a billion dollar gift you should use it.
Otherwise, some less than charitable mustachians might attribute this as luck rather than skill.
I don't believe I have the skill to do that. I would make the hasty prediction I've never encountered anyone who does. Investing billions moves stock prices and markets. That's a completely different way of planning compared to investing small amounts of money. Nor do I have the skill to sell and raise capital, manage a large team, or know the regulations required to start and operate a hedge fund. I would say, perhaps, those less charitable mustachians and bloggers don't actually know everything about investing. That, maybe, believing you're incapable of learning about business and finding companies worth your investment is a potent reason why you haven't.
More likely you got lucky, and for every person chiming in here who got lucky, there are 9 (or more) who didn't get lucky who we'll never hear from. When your luck runs out, we'll stop hearing from you, just like all the other folks over the years.
Regardless, kudos. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm glad you beat the market. I just doubt it involved your skill as much as you think it did.
-W
I don't believe I have the skill to do that. I would make the hasty prediction I've never encountered anyone who does. Investing billions moves stock prices and markets. That's a completely different way of planning compared to investing small amounts of money. Nor do I have the skill to sell and raise capital, manage a large team, or know the regulations required to start and operate a hedge fund. I would say, perhaps, those less charitable mustachians and bloggers don't actually know everything about investing. That, maybe, believing you're incapable of learning about business and finding companies worth your investment is a potent reason why you haven't.Good point about managing other people's money. It's not that I don't think I can learn to invest my own assets at better than index fund returns, it's that I don't think it would be worth my time to do so. By the time I have enough investment assets that the difference in return that I think I could expect would be worth the time, I should be too close to FI to care. Of course my expectation is that with sufficient time spent studying businesses, the average yield from stock picking might be closer to 25% better than the index than the returns you've seen.
Now your quote is the record of it appearing here.snipReported as the spam that it is.
Good point about managing other people's money. It's not that I don't think I can learn to invest my own assets at better than index fund returns, it's that I don't think it would be worth my time to do so. By the time I have enough investment assets that the difference in return that I think I could expect would be worth the time, I should be too close to FI to care. Of course my expectation is that with sufficient time spent studying businesses, the average yield from stock picking might be closer to 25% better than the index than the returns you've seen.
Hmm. so if your portfolio managed the long term average (say 10%) for 20 years with no cash additions you would have ~6.7X your initial investment. Not bad.Not sure how 13.75% annual return is a 25% more than 10% annual return.
25% better is 13.75% per year. In 20 years that's ~13.1x your initial money. Seems worthwhile to me. Twice the capital means you can withdraw more or retire earlier.
Is this guaranteed, no. Is it easy, no. Should you try? That's up to you. There's definitely a chance that you'll fail and end up with less than just indexing. It's not like it's all or nothing or you can't change your mind if it's not working.
Just like paying 1% to a financial advisor every year (9% vs 10% leads to 5.6x vs 6.7x) ends up absolutely killing your returns even though it seems small at the time, improving things a little compounds. As humans we really have a hard time understanding exponential processes.
Hmm. so if your portfolio managed the long term average (say 10%) for 20 years with no cash additions you would have ~6.7X your initial investment. Not bad.Not sure how 13.75% annual return is a 25% more than 10% annual return.
25% better is 13.75% per year. In 20 years that's ~13.1x your initial money. Seems worthwhile to me. Twice the capital means you can withdraw more or retire earlier.
Is this guaranteed, no. Is it easy, no. Should you try? That's up to you. There's definitely a chance that you'll fail and end up with less than just indexing. It's not like it's all or nothing or you can't change your mind if it's not working.
Just like paying 1% to a financial advisor every year (9% vs 10% leads to 5.6x vs 6.7x) ends up absolutely killing your returns even though it seems small at the time, improving things a little compounds. As humans we really have a hard time understanding exponential processes.
More importantly, it's not about how much return I make on money I have today. I'm accumulating savings to reach financial independence - the value of the higher returns is less because there's less average time in the market. My estimation is that at a savings rate of 1/3 of income (1/2 of expenses) one could expect to reach FI (25x expenses) in about 19 years if returns average 10% per year. Increasing the rate of return to 12.5% would shave just over 2 years off the expected time to FI. 2 years of full time work is about 4000 hours. 4000 hours over 17 years is about an hour per business day.
With all the attention on Tesla, I feel like we've missed the dramatic surge Amazon's shareprice has seen in the last four months. An already large company has basically doubled, with what feels like much less news coverage.
10% return means multiply the previous value by 1.1. 1.1 * 1.25 = 1.1375.Ah, I see how you came up with the number now, but I disagree with your reasoning. 10% return means you add 10% to the original value. You can shortcut this with math by multiplying the value by (1 + 0.1). I believe it should be (1 + (0.1 * (1 + 0.25))) not ((1 + 0.1) * (1 + 0.25)).
10% return means multiply the previous value by 1.1. 1.1 * 1.25 = 1.1375.Ah, I see how you came up with the number now, but I disagree with your reasoning. 10% return means you add 10% to the original value. You can shortcut this with math by multiplying the value by (1 + 0.1). I believe it should be (1 + (0.1 * (1 + 0.25))) not ((1 + 0.1) * (1 + 0.25)).
Quote from: snip...snip
Reported as the spam that it is.
The conventional wisdom is,Hmm, $505 to $1539, it did go up, so you should have bought it!
"Buy low and sell high, and if it doesn't go up don't buy it."
I have to admit, I've been wrong about Tesla so far, and only saved from shorting it by the remarkable premium that the market demands for put options. For the jumps in share price this season look...cartoonish. I'm reminded of something like $GBTC three years ago when I see them. They suggest such a possible variation in future outcomes, that I cannot feel good about a long position, either.
The conventional wisdom is,Hmm, $505 to $1539, it did go up, so you should have bought it!
"Buy low and sell high, and if it doesn't go up don't buy it."
Mar 23 to July 27.
If that's so, it's OK!The conventional wisdom is,Hmm, $505 to $1539, it did go up, so you should have bought it!
"Buy low and sell high, and if it doesn't go up don't buy it."
Mar 23 to July 27.
You're admonishing yourself.
so when we geting added to the S&P? been over 3 weeks now. Does Elon do a split and take it to $2000 with that news as well?
Just a 2 week 1 std dev iron condor can be sold for more than $10, which is stunningly high premium...I have to admit, I've been wrong about Tesla so far, and only saved from shorting it by the remarkable premium that the market demands for put options. For the jumps in share price this season look...cartoonish. I'm reminded of something like $GBTC three years ago when I see them. They suggest such a possible variation in future outcomes, that I cannot feel good about a long position, either.
You aren't kidding. A 20% OTM January put is ~$150. Wow.
Maybe I'll short it instead.
More lies from Musk & Co. yesterday.
Where are the robotaxis? Where is the semi that was supposed to be into production by 2019? Where is the coast to coast fully autonomous trip that was supposed to be completed by 2018? Where is the new gen Roadster that was supposed to be out in 2020? Where is the 620 mile range that was "for sure" going to happen by 2017? Where are the 10k/week Model 3s out of Fremont that "zero doubt" was happening by 2018? Where are the solar roofs?
Musk and TSLA are built on outlandish lies and promises, which pump the stock. Then when we get to the point of those promises not coming true, Musk doubles down. They've mass produced a sedan and a hatchback version of that sedan with horrendous quality issues. They're running at 1% margins and a 1k+ P/E ratio. It's a cult stock.
More lies from Musk & Co. yesterday.
Where are the robotaxis? Where is the semi that was supposed to be into production by 2019? Where is the coast to coast fully autonomous trip that was supposed to be completed by 2018? Where is the new gen Roadster that was supposed to be out in 2020? Where is the 620 mile range that was "for sure" going to happen by 2017? Where are the 10k/week Model 3s out of Fremont that "zero doubt" was happening by 2018? Where are the solar roofs?
Musk and TSLA are built on outlandish lies and promises, which pump the stock. Then when we get to the point of those promises not coming true, Musk doubles down. They've mass produced a sedan and a hatchback version of that sedan with horrendous quality issues. They're running at 1% margins and a 1k+ P/E ratio. It's a cult stock.
More lies from Musk & Co. yesterday.
Where are the robotaxis? Where is the semi that was supposed to be into production by 2019? Where is the coast to coast fully autonomous trip that was supposed to be completed by 2018? Where is the new gen Roadster that was supposed to be out in 2020? Where is the 620 mile range that was "for sure" going to happen by 2017? Where are the 10k/week Model 3s out of Fremont that "zero doubt" was happening by 2018? Where are the solar roofs?
Musk and TSLA are built on outlandish lies and promises, which pump the stock. Then when we get to the point of those promises not coming true, Musk doubles down. They've mass produced a sedan and a hatchback version of that sedan with horrendous quality issues. They're running at 1% margins and a 1k+ P/E ratio. It's a cult stock.
They make one of the best cars I've ever driven. You can yell angrily at your computer all you want, but the Model 3 is just a spectacular vehicle.
More lies from Musk & Co. yesterday.
Where are the robotaxis? Where is the semi that was supposed to be into production by 2019? Where is the coast to coast fully autonomous trip that was supposed to be completed by 2018? Where is the new gen Roadster that was supposed to be out in 2020? Where is the 620 mile range that was "for sure" going to happen by 2017? Where are the 10k/week Model 3s out of Fremont that "zero doubt" was happening by 2018? Where are the solar roofs?
Musk and TSLA are built on outlandish lies and promises, which pump the stock. Then when we get to the point of those promises not coming true, Musk doubles down. They've mass produced a sedan and a hatchback version of that sedan with horrendous quality issues. They're running at 1% margins and a 1k+ P/E ratio. It's a cult stock.
This is tiring. I'm certainly not going to tell people to invest in Tesla, and I'm certainly not going to do it myself, but it's not a "cult stock". Tesla is the leader in the BEV market, bar none, and other things like the solar roofs and self-driving are in fact happening, just not as fast as Ol' Musky projected.
You can point out that it's not a good investment at this P/E ratio without going full anti-fanboy.
More lies from Musk & Co. yesterday.
Where are the robotaxis? Where is the semi that was supposed to be into production by 2019? Where is the coast to coast fully autonomous trip that was supposed to be completed by 2018? Where is the new gen Roadster that was supposed to be out in 2020? Where is the 620 mile range that was "for sure" going to happen by 2017? Where are the 10k/week Model 3s out of Fremont that "zero doubt" was happening by 2018? Where are the solar roofs?
Musk and TSLA are built on outlandish lies and promises, which pump the stock. Then when we get to the point of those promises not coming true, Musk doubles down. They've mass produced a sedan and a hatchback version of that sedan with horrendous quality issues. They're running at 1% margins and a 1k+ P/E ratio. It's a cult stock.
They make one of the best cars I've ever driven. You can yell angrily at your computer all you want, but the Model 3 is just a spectacular vehicle.
Is it a robotaxi yet?
More lies from Musk & Co. yesterday.
Where are the robotaxis? Where is the semi that was supposed to be into production by 2019? Where is the coast to coast fully autonomous trip that was supposed to be completed by 2018? Where is the new gen Roadster that was supposed to be out in 2020? Where is the 620 mile range that was "for sure" going to happen by 2017? Where are the 10k/week Model 3s out of Fremont that "zero doubt" was happening by 2018? Where are the solar roofs?
Musk and TSLA are built on outlandish lies and promises, which pump the stock. Then when we get to the point of those promises not coming true, Musk doubles down. They've mass produced a sedan and a hatchback version of that sedan with horrendous quality issues. They're running at 1% margins and a 1k+ P/E ratio. It's a cult stock.
They make one of the best cars I've ever driven. You can yell angrily at your computer all you want, but the Model 3 is just a spectacular vehicle.
Is it a robotaxi yet?
Nope. Do you have one? Have you even driven one? Or are you just someone who likes to yell at people on the internet?
More lies from Musk & Co. yesterday.
Where are the robotaxis? Where is the semi that was supposed to be into production by 2019? Where is the coast to coast fully autonomous trip that was supposed to be completed by 2018? Where is the new gen Roadster that was supposed to be out in 2020? Where is the 620 mile range that was "for sure" going to happen by 2017? Where are the 10k/week Model 3s out of Fremont that "zero doubt" was happening by 2018? Where are the solar roofs?
Musk and TSLA are built on outlandish lies and promises, which pump the stock. Then when we get to the point of those promises not coming true, Musk doubles down. They've mass produced a sedan and a hatchback version of that sedan with horrendous quality issues. They're running at 1% margins and a 1k+ P/E ratio. It's a cult stock.
They make one of the best cars I've ever driven. You can yell angrily at your computer all you want, but the Model 3 is just a spectacular vehicle.
Is it a robotaxi yet?
Nope. Do you have one? Have you even driven one? Or are you just someone who likes to yell at people on the internet?
I asked you a simple question. How is that yelling lmfao
More lies from Musk & Co. yesterday.
Where are the robotaxis? Where is the semi that was supposed to be into production by 2019? Where is the coast to coast fully autonomous trip that was supposed to be completed by 2018? Where is the new gen Roadster that was supposed to be out in 2020? Where is the 620 mile range that was "for sure" going to happen by 2017? Where are the 10k/week Model 3s out of Fremont that "zero doubt" was happening by 2018? Where are the solar roofs?
Musk and TSLA are built on outlandish lies and promises, which pump the stock. Then when we get to the point of those promises not coming true, Musk doubles down. They've mass produced a sedan and a hatchback version of that sedan with horrendous quality issues. They're running at 1% margins and a 1k+ P/E ratio. It's a cult stock.
More lies from Musk & Co. yesterday.
Where are the robotaxis? Where is the semi that was supposed to be into production by 2019? Where is the coast to coast fully autonomous trip that was supposed to be completed by 2018? Where is the new gen Roadster that was supposed to be out in 2020? Where is the 620 mile range that was "for sure" going to happen by 2017? Where are the 10k/week Model 3s out of Fremont that "zero doubt" was happening by 2018? Where are the solar roofs?
Musk and TSLA are built on outlandish lies and promises, which pump the stock. Then when we get to the point of those promises not coming true, Musk doubles down. They've mass produced a sedan and a hatchback version of that sedan with horrendous quality issues. They're running at 1% margins and a 1k+ P/E ratio. It's a cult stock.
More lies from Musk & Co. yesterday.
Where are the robotaxis? Where is the semi that was supposed to be into production by 2019? Where is the coast to coast fully autonomous trip that was supposed to be completed by 2018? Where is the new gen Roadster that was supposed to be out in 2020? Where is the 620 mile range that was "for sure" going to happen by 2017? Where are the 10k/week Model 3s out of Fremont that "zero doubt" was happening by 2018? Where are the solar roofs?
Musk and TSLA are built on outlandish lies and promises, which pump the stock. Then when we get to the point of those promises not coming true, Musk doubles down. They've mass produced a sedan and a hatchback version of that sedan with horrendous quality issues. They're running at 1% margins and a 1k+ P/E ratio. It's a cult stock.
They make one of the best cars I've ever driven. You can yell angrily at your computer all you want, but the Model 3 is just a spectacular vehicle.
Is it a robotaxi yet?
Nope. Do you have one? Have you even driven one? Or are you just someone who likes to yell at people on the internet?
I asked you a simple question. How is that yelling lmfao
Would you like me to rephrase to "type angrily"? Perhaps that's more accurate.QuoteMore lies from Musk & Co. yesterday.
Where are the robotaxis? Where is the semi that was supposed to be into production by 2019? Where is the coast to coast fully autonomous trip that was supposed to be completed by 2018? Where is the new gen Roadster that was supposed to be out in 2020? Where is the 620 mile range that was "for sure" going to happen by 2017? Where are the 10k/week Model 3s out of Fremont that "zero doubt" was happening by 2018? Where are the solar roofs?
Musk and TSLA are built on outlandish lies and promises, which pump the stock. Then when we get to the point of those promises not coming true, Musk doubles down. They've mass produced a sedan and a hatchback version of that sedan with horrendous quality issues. They're running at 1% margins and a 1k+ P/E ratio. It's a cult stock.
More lies from Musk & Co. yesterday.
Where are the robotaxis? Where is the semi that was supposed to be into production by 2019? Where is the coast to coast fully autonomous trip that was supposed to be completed by 2018? Where is the new gen Roadster that was supposed to be out in 2020? Where is the 620 mile range that was "for sure" going to happen by 2017? Where are the 10k/week Model 3s out of Fremont that "zero doubt" was happening by 2018? Where are the solar roofs?
Musk and TSLA are built on outlandish lies and promises, which pump the stock. Then when we get to the point of those promises not coming true, Musk doubles down. They've mass produced a sedan and a hatchback version of that sedan with horrendous quality issues. They're running at 1% margins and a 1k+ P/E ratio. It's a cult stock.
I found some more leads for you to follow in exposing the industry:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/07/all-the-promises-automakers-have-made-about-the-future-of-cars/532806/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/07/all-the-promises-automakers-have-made-about-the-future-of-cars/532806/)
In addition, I can afford to send you a tin foil hat with this year's TSLA gains to help in your endeavors.
The car is 100% for sure fully capable of driving autonomously coast to coast, right now. Using that statement as a knock against Tesla is just silly.Is that apples to apples?
In Q2 of 2020 Tesla's real world real driving data showed 1 car accident every 4.53 [MILLION] miles driven with autopilot engaged, compared to the national average of 1 accident per 479,000 miles driven. This is real actual data, not some simulation or estimation.
So RIGHT NOW autopilot gets in 10 times fewer accidents than a human driver.
The car is 100% for sure fully capable of driving autonomously coast to coast, right now. Using that statement as a knock against Tesla is just silly.
The car is 100% for sure fully capable of driving autonomously coast to coast, right now. Using that statement as a knock against Tesla is just silly.Is that apples to apples?
In Q2 of 2020 Tesla's real world real driving data showed 1 car accident every 4.53 [MILLION] miles driven with autopilot engaged, compared to the national average of 1 accident per 479,000 miles driven. This is real actual data, not some simulation or estimation.
So RIGHT NOW autopilot gets in 10 times fewer accidents than a human driver.
Is Autopilot used extensively in urban driving where most accidents happen?
The car is 100% for sure fully capable of driving autonomously coast to coast, right now. Using that statement as a knock against Tesla is just silly.
The problem is people focus on the accidents. So yea, Teslas on autopilot have crashed, but guess what - there would have been 10 times more crashes if they hadn't been on autopilot, and humans are just bad at wrapping their heads around that.
Elon calls it a problem of how many 9s people expect. Going from 99% accident free to 99.9% to 99.99% to 99.999% is a really big step each time.
So since you are clearly a skeptic, what is your answer? Statistics clearly show autopilot is 10 times better right now, do you need it to be 100 times better before you believe in it? 1,000 times better? 1,000,000 times better???? Personally if I had to get in a taxi I'd rather have it be running on Tesla autopilot than a random human driver - and autopilot is getting better every day, human drivers if anything are just getting more and more distracted.
The thing is, Tesla is contributing to those distracted drivers by placing a huge screen front/center. They're contributing to the problem they're trying to solve by integrating the HVAC controls into that screen, so that if you want to change the temp or where the air is blowing, you have to take your eyes off the road. They're making the problem worse by allowing drivers to mess with functions on the screen (unrelated to operating the vehicle) while the vehicle is moving. Most of the Autopilot accidents that I'm aware of involve Autopilot tech being misused by the driver. Imagine how good Tesla's safety record could be if they put similar safeguards in place that others in the industry already do?
I'd be more comfortable using it as it's intended use (augmented cruise control), but that breeds complacency too, which can lead to situations where the driver needs to take over, but isn't prepared to do so.
My experience with it is that rather than breed complacency it drastically reduces driver fatigue, and allows me to be much more aware of situational considerations ("is there someone coming up fast behind me?") than having to focus all the time on keeping the car in the lane. But yes, I'm sure there are a lot of people who misuse and abuse the system. I doubt it will be practical to ban level 2-4 autonomy, so my main hope is that the system continues to improve, and hopefully rapidly, so that the abuse will be less of a problem.Level 2 autonomy seems to have the highest risk of abuse. I think eventually new vehicles will not be allowed to offer level 2 autonomy. Yes, enforcing restrictions on using level 2 autonomous vehicles that are already deployed does not seem practical. I hope that most existing level 2 systems are upgraded to at least level 3 as the technology progresses. I think software upgrades enabling level 3 should be free and automatic where possible.
My experience with it is that rather than breed complacency it drastically reduces driver fatigue, and allows me to be much more aware of situational considerations ("is there someone coming up fast behind me?") than having to focus all the time on keeping the car in the lane. But yes, I'm sure there are a lot of people who misuse and abuse the system. I doubt it will be practical to ban level 2-4 autonomy, so my main hope is that the system continues to improve, and hopefully rapidly, so that the abuse will be less of a problem.Level 2 autonomy seems to have the highest risk of abuse. I think eventually new vehicles will not be allowed to offer level 2 autonomy. Yes, enforcing restrictions on using level 2 autonomous vehicles that are already deployed does not seem practical. I hope that most existing level 2 systems are upgraded to at least level 3 as the technology progresses. I think software upgrades enabling level 3 should be free and automatic where possible.
Level 3 has less potential for abuse, simply because the driver has more options that should not be considered abuse. Driver watching a movie, reading a book, texting, etc. is OK up until the vehicle notifies them that they will soon need to take over. I'm not sure how much notice is meant by "with notice" - 15-30 seconds while the driver develops situational awareness before being required to take control seems reasonable to me.
Level 4 should be safe. It might mean the autonomous vehicle decides it cannot proceed and safely stops. I see no reason to ever restrict use of level 4 autonomy. The only difference I see between level 4 and level 5 is that a subset of conditions that are considered safe enough for human drivers to handle are not able to be handled by the autonomous vehicle.
Also bear in mind that the point of vehicle autonomy would be to let the driver be distracted.
The “benefit” of this tech will be that you’ll eventually be able to scroll through Facebook ads or shop on Amazon during your commutes, activities which will eventually lead to higher spending on your part. Welcome to the attention economy / hell.
A Tesla commute will eventually involve consuming ads during the drive, which will help pay for the ride in a post-car-ownership world. The end game is to create a gated ecosystem where Tesla captures some of these ad revenues.
So you’ll be shuttled around in a vehicle you don’t own, control, or have any way to control, with a screen in front of your face playing ads the whole way. The price you pay for this luxury (sitting and viewing ads is already our main leisure activity, after all) will depend on how long you are willing to sit in the car. Traffic speeds could slow to a crawl if the revenue from targeted advertising exceeds the cost of driving time because many consumer/workers will pick the cheapest way to get to work, which is the slowest and most convoluted route. The things you buy on these trips will further impoverish you, causing you to again buy the cheapest transportation next time which exposes you to the most ads, and so the cycle continues.
Again, bicycle commuting wins.
Also bear in mind that the point of vehicle autonomy would be to let the driver be distracted.
The “benefit” of this tech will be that you’ll eventually be able to scroll through Facebook ads or shop on Amazon during your commutes, activities which will eventually lead to higher spending on your part. Welcome to the attention economy / hell.
A Tesla commute will eventually involve consuming ads during the drive, which will help pay for the ride in a post-car-ownership world. The end game is to create a gated ecosystem where Tesla captures some of these ad revenues.
So you’ll be shuttled around in a vehicle you don’t own, control, or have any way to control, with a screen in front of your face playing ads the whole way. The price you pay for this luxury (sitting and viewing ads is already our main leisure activity, after all) will depend on how long you are willing to sit in the car. Traffic speeds could slow to a crawl if the revenue from targeted advertising exceeds the cost of driving time because many consumer/workers will pick the cheapest way to get to work, which is the slowest and most convoluted route. The things you buy on these trips will further impoverish you, causing you to again buy the cheapest transportation next time which exposes you to the most ads, and so the cycle continues.
Again, bicycle commuting wins.
That’s a rather cynical vision of the “benefit”. Distraction is one facet. Can also be used to transit goods, handicapped individuals, or the elderly in addition to reducing cost for people in general. Sometimes people who are very upset need to go somewhere. You could also use the free time to be productive, creative, or give another passenger your full attention in conversation. What you’re saying is likely to happen, but I would disagree in describing the tech as a pseudo benefit.
Seems TSLA just jumped 13.5% after hours. Wonder why?
I wonder if the SpaceX news had anything to do with this increase?
This is one of those times I am quite happy that I am invested in the Total Stock Index fund rather than the S&P500 index fund... I've been riding this TSLA wave all of the way up somewhat unintentionally. There's going to be a lot of people buying high with their S&P500 Index Funds... but that's not to say it is the top by any means for TSLA.
Tesla shares surged as much as 5.5% on Thursday after Elon Musk's electric-car company posted third-quarter earnings on Wednesday that beat Wall Street's expectations. The automaker grew revenue by 39% year-on-year to $8.8 billion, which helped to more than triple its operating income to a record $809 million
QuoteTesla shares surged as much as 5.5% on Thursday after Elon Musk's electric-car company posted third-quarter earnings on Wednesday that beat Wall Street's expectations. The automaker grew revenue by 39% year-on-year to $8.8 billion, which helped to more than triple its operating income to a record $809 million
https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-stock-price-jumps-elon-musk-electric-cars-q3-profit-2020-10
so - is tsla in the sp500 yet or still speculating?
and if it goes in, who is it kicking out?? Either past or future tense?
Also - wondering - did some of the early investors here hold all the way and/or has tsla propel them to RE?
I think I saw someone say they had 600 shares....before the split...that's like 1.5m now??
Want to hear about it :)
Also - wondering - did some of the early investors here hold all the way and/or has tsla propel them to RE?
I think I saw someone say they had 600 shares....before the split...that's like 1.5m now??
Want to hear about it :)
Pretty safe to say that it has been a good investment since the beginning of this thread... it has almost gone 10x.
Pretty safe to say that it has been a good investment since the beginning of this thread... it has almost gone 10x.
Betting on 26 at a particular roulette table in Vegas also turned out to be a "good investment" for somebody during this timeframe. The risk of buying a stock with a PE near 1000 and a dependence upon certain technical and political developments is not fully appreciated. Either winning or losing such a bet seems obvious in hindsight.
Pretty safe to say that it has been a good investment since the beginning of this thread... it has almost gone 10x.
Betting on 26 at a particular roulette table in Vegas also turned out to be a "good investment" for somebody during this timeframe. The risk of buying a stock with a PE near 1000 and a dependence upon certain technical and political developments is not fully appreciated. Either winning or losing such a bet seems obvious in hindsight.
Pretty safe to say that it has been a good investment since the beginning of this thread... it has almost gone 10x.
Betting on 26 at a particular roulette table in Vegas also turned out to be a "good investment" for somebody during this timeframe. The risk of buying a stock with a PE near 1000 and a dependence upon certain technical and political developments is not fully appreciated. Either winning or losing such a bet seems obvious in hindsight.
Thanks, I wanted to say something like that too.
I'm happy that Tesla's succeeding. I have a Tesla, and I think they're a great company. But this outcome was in no way assured, or obvious, or even likely.
Pretty safe to say that it has been a good investment since the beginning of this thread... it has almost gone 10x.
Betting on 26 at a particular roulette table in Vegas also turned out to be a "good investment" for somebody during this timeframe. The risk of buying a stock with a PE near 1000 and a dependence upon certain technical and political developments is not fully appreciated. Either winning or losing such a bet seems obvious in hindsight.
You have to excuse me, but I cannot take anyone seriously who is promoting PE as the primary analysis metric for a rapid growth company in a capital-intensive industry.
Did you go 100% all in based on this conviction? Are you doing so now?Pretty safe to say that it has been a good investment since the beginning of this thread... it has almost gone 10x.
Betting on 26 at a particular roulette table in Vegas also turned out to be a "good investment" for somebody during this timeframe. The risk of buying a stock with a PE near 1000 and a dependence upon certain technical and political developments is not fully appreciated. Either winning or losing such a bet seems obvious in hindsight.
You have to excuse me, but I cannot take anyone seriously who is promoting PE as the primary analysis metric for a rapid growth company in a capital-intensive industry.
There’s a lot odd about that perspective. Likening investing in a company to a roulette table before even discussing risk is the first. Everything being 100% luck for any investment but your own is good cover for an ego too fragile to ask why some people saw an opportunity and I didn’t. Despite years of arguments documented to look at.
Did you go 100% all in based on this conviction? Are you doing so now?
Also - wondering - did some of the early investors here hold all the way and/or has tsla propel them to RE?
I think I saw someone say they had 600 shares....before the split...that's like 1.5m now??
Want to hear about it :)
Did you go 100% all in based on this conviction? Are you doing so now?
I don't think forward P/E is a "backward looking instrument".
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/forwardpe.asp
"Forward price-to-earnings (forward P/E) is a version of the ratio of price-to-earnings (P/E) that uses forecasted earnings for the P/E calculation."
I disagree that a forward P/E of 345 (average of Yahoo and Morningstar) is "low P/E". A hint that you're wrong is in your example, where even Amazon has a forward P/E of 149.25. Amazon is the #3 holding in Vanguard Growth ETF, with the other two being Microsoft (fwd P/E 34.1) and Apple (fwd P/E 25.5). I can keep pointing to growth stocks which have forward P/E below 345, if you want to argue about "value" vs "growth" stocks.
So I think you're wrong about P/E: Tesla's forward P/E ratio is extreme. You call everything below 345 "low P/E", even though almost all of the S&P 500 would be "low P/E" by that usage.
It's also interesting that nobody in favor of Tesla compares it to other automobile makers. I ask repeatedly which company should Tesla be compared to, and the only answer I've gotten is Amazon. Tesla, the car maker, should be compared to Amazon, the online sales giant. Which again, to me makes no sense.
Cramer said the company has future catalysts that could keep people from selling the stock with China sales, the German factory taking off and news on the Cybertruck: “It’s a technology company, not an auto company.”
Cramer said if Tesla was just an automotive company, it would be harder to justify the valuation
https://www.benzinga.com/media/20/11/18510818/cramer-says-teslas-valuation-is-easier-to-justify-as-tech-company-not-auto
interesting take.QuoteCramer said the company has future catalysts that could keep people from selling the stock with China sales, the German factory taking off and news on the Cybertruck: “It’s a technology company, not an auto company.”
Cramer said if Tesla was just an automotive company, it would be harder to justify the valuation
OK, forget about earnings and the now 1,027 PE ratio.
Tesla's price to free cash flow is 302. So the money it internally generates that is available to reinvest in itself is 0.33% of its price.
The price to book value is 27.48. So one could take the market cap and buy everything TSLA owns 27.48 times.
The point is this: Putting money into TSLA or keeping it there long term is 100% a bet on a narrative that involves the company reaching some point of maturity where their market share exceeds that of the world's next six largest automakers, as their market cap already does today. They will presumably do this without diluting shareholders too much because they'll use their free cash flow, which, as noted, is 0.33% of the price. Just for fun, double the numbers and see if that helps. Go wild and apply the company's 6.1% operating margin to a three or four times increase in revenue (since we're being generous, include the sale of environmental credits to fossil-fuel automakers, which accounts for 7% of revenue). Build me a 10 year model on these numbers that gets us to industry-standard margins and PE ratios for a future Tesla with Toyota-like worldwide dominance. Find a way the narrative makes sense on a spreadsheet and then we'll ask whether TSLA can outcompete VW and the Chinese automakers. Remember in your spreadsheet assumptions we are selling capital-intensive hardware, not software.
OK, forget about earnings and the now 1,027 PE ratio.
Tesla's price to free cash flow is 302. So the money it internally generates that is available to reinvest in itself is 0.33% of its price.
The price to book value is 27.48. So one could take the market cap and buy everything TSLA owns 27.48 times.
The point is this: Putting money into TSLA or keeping it there long term is 100% a bet on a narrative that involves the company reaching some point of maturity where their market share exceeds that of the world's next six largest automakers, as their market cap already does today. They will presumably do this without diluting shareholders too much because they'll use their free cash flow, which, as noted, is 0.33% of the price. Just for fun, double the numbers and see if that helps. Go wild and apply the company's 6.1% operating margin to a three or four times increase in revenue (since we're being generous, include the sale of environmental credits to fossil-fuel automakers, which accounts for 7% of revenue). Build me a 10 year model on these numbers that gets us to industry-standard margins and PE ratios for a future Tesla with Toyota-like worldwide dominance. Find a way the narrative makes sense on a spreadsheet and then we'll ask whether TSLA can outcompete VW and the Chinese automakers. Remember in your spreadsheet assumptions we are selling capital-intensive hardware, not software.
How much do you have?
and what happened to all those people shorting tesla? that's gotta hurt.
How much do you have?
and what happened to all those people shorting tesla? that's gotta hurt.
How much do you have?
and what happened to all those people shorting tesla? that's gotta hurt.
Last I heard, known shorts had lost more money than Tesla has ever raised in stock sales. Billions and Billions of dollars.
June 3rd, 2019:
I had been watching TSLA stock fall and following the news around the SEC fraud litigation against Musk...I very rarely purchase individual stocks, but seeing the price fall below $180 I decided I wanted to take a chance. That night, I put my three boys to bed, logged into my Vanguard Roth IRA and entered a transaction to buy ~$100,000 worth of TSLA (roughly 20% of my investment portfolio at the time). Just as I was about to submit, one of my then 3-year-old twins burst out of his bedroom needing attention. My session timed out. After reconsidering I decided to just stick with my 100% index fund strategy. 1.5 years and a 5:1 stock split later, that ~$100k gamble would be worth ~$1.8M. Of course, I surely would have sold long before now...but a guy can dream, right? On the bright side, my kids have since settled into a much better bedtime routine.
June 3rd, 2019:
I had been watching TSLA stock fall and following the news around the SEC fraud litigation against Musk...I very rarely purchase individual stocks, but seeing the price fall below $180 I decided I wanted to take a chance. That night, I put my three boys to bed, logged into my Vanguard Roth IRA and entered a transaction to buy ~$100,000 worth of TSLA (roughly 20% of my investment portfolio at the time). Just as I was about to submit, one of my then 3-year-old twins burst out of his bedroom needing attention. My session timed out. After reconsidering I decided to just stick with my 100% index fund strategy. 1.5 years and a 5:1 stock split later, that ~$100k gamble would be worth ~$1.8M. Of course, I surely would have sold long before now...but a guy can dream, right? On the bright side, my kids have since settled into a much better bedtime routine.
After hours it's 649.24.
Another $28 and I'll have 100x my initial investment of 8 years ago.
After hours it's 649.24.
Another $28 and I'll have 100x my initial investment of 8 years ago.
oo - down so far today! but not by a whole bunch considering!
As an engineer I can say that the majority of us with work experience would not work for Tesla. The ones that do start looking elsewhere real quick or are sent packing when they refuse to work crazy hours or dare to have differing opinions. They don't have any special sauce there just a bottomless credit card in the form of share issuance.
Reading this thread is very interesting - I used to be 100% in index funds and on a typical mustachian FIRE path but on a 'lower' salary and aiming for lean FIRE in about 10 years. In 2019 I decided to sell most of my index funds and buy shares in Tesla and a couple of Crispr companies. I'm now approaching my minimum leanfire target and basically saved myself 10 years of office work.
I would never say I wasn't very lucky, or that other people should follow this approach, but I do generally think that putting a bit of money (not everything obv) towards disruptive and innovative technologies is probably not a bad idea. Another useful aspect is that some extremely smart people with incredible track records (Cathie Wood, Chamath Palihapitiya etc) are putting their ideas and ways of thinking online for free.
Reading this thread is very interesting - I used to be 100% in index funds and on a typical mustachian FIRE path but on a 'lower' salary and aiming for lean FIRE in about 10 years. In 2019 I decided to sell most of my index funds and buy shares in Tesla and a couple of Crispr companies. I'm now approaching my minimum leanfire target and basically saved myself 10 years of office work.
I would never say I wasn't very lucky, or that other people should follow this approach, but I do generally think that putting a bit of money (not everything obv) towards disruptive and innovative technologies is probably not a bad idea. Another useful aspect is that some extremely smart people with incredible track records (Cathie Wood, Chamath Palihapitiya etc) are putting their ideas and ways of thinking online for free.
I don't disagree with this per se, but it's a bit of survivorship bias. Let's say that value investing was in vogue this past 3-5 years instead of emerging tech. No one would know who Cathie Wood and Charmath Palihaptiya are, but there would be 2 other people you just listed instead.
Telsa is working out as a great investment for some people....
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/investing/elon-musk-jeff-bezos-richest-person/index.html
Elon Musk overtakes Jeff Bezos to become world's richest person
I'm one of these people. I bought Tesla stock back in Feb 2012 and am now up nearly 12900% on that initial purchase. I've bought more over the years as well.
Reading this thread is very interesting - I used to be 100% in index funds and on a typical mustachian FIRE path but on a 'lower' salary and aiming for lean FIRE in about 10 years. In 2019 I decided to sell most of my index funds and buy shares in Tesla and a couple of Crispr companies. I'm now approaching my minimum leanfire target and basically saved myself 10 years of office work.
I would never say I wasn't very lucky, or that other people should follow this approach, but I do generally think that putting a bit of money (not everything obv) towards disruptive and innovative technologies is probably not a bad idea. Another useful aspect is that some extremely smart people with incredible track records (Cathie Wood, Chamath Palihapitiya etc) are putting their ideas and ways of thinking online for free.
I don't disagree with this per se, but it's a bit of survivorship bias. Let's say that value investing was in vogue this past 3-5 years instead of emerging tech. No one would know who Cathie Wood and Charmath Palihaptiya are, but there would be 2 other people you just listed instead.
Yes for sure that's a good point about survivorship bias. I think its great that these days its very easy to learn about so many different investing styles, whether its MMM, Warren Buffet, Dave Ramsey, Gary Vaynerchuk etc, and then you can figure out which approach might work for you.
June 3rd, 2019:
I had been watching TSLA stock fall and following the news around the SEC fraud litigation against Musk...I very rarely purchase individual stocks, but seeing the price fall below $180 I decided I wanted to take a chance. That night, I put my three boys to bed, logged into my Vanguard Roth IRA and entered a transaction to buy ~$100,000 worth of TSLA (roughly 20% of my investment portfolio at the time). Just as I was about to submit, one of my then 3-year-old twins burst out of his bedroom needing attention. My session timed out. After reconsidering I decided to just stick with my 100% index fund strategy. 1.5 years and a 5:1 stock split later, that ~$100k gamble would be worth ~$1.8M. Of course, I surely would have sold long before now...but a guy can dream, right? On the bright side, my kids have since settled into a much better bedtime routine.
DANG!! Very entertaining read...glad you have a sense a humor about it with that last note about the bright side of things.
June 3rd, 2019:
I had been watching TSLA stock fall and following the news around the SEC fraud litigation against Musk...I very rarely purchase individual stocks, but seeing the price fall below $180 I decided I wanted to take a chance. That night, I put my three boys to bed, logged into my Vanguard Roth IRA and entered a transaction to buy ~$100,000 worth of TSLA (roughly 20% of my investment portfolio at the time). Just as I was about to submit, one of my then 3-year-old twins burst out of his bedroom needing attention. My session timed out. After reconsidering I decided to just stick with my 100% index fund strategy. 1.5 years and a 5:1 stock split later, that ~$100k gamble would be worth ~$1.8M. Of course, I surely would have sold long before now...but a guy can dream, right? On the bright side, my kids have since settled into a much better bedtime routine.
DANG!! Very entertaining read...glad you have a sense a humor about it with that last note about the bright side of things.
I still look at my tesla job offer from August 2018 that came with a sign on bonus. It would be over a million $ now.
Chinese regulators met with executives from Tesla recently after several government agencies reported “an unusual acceleration” of complaints from consumers about battery fires and other quality issues with the company’s electric cars.
In a post on the Chinese social media platform WeChat, the State Administration for Market Regulation said officials from five government agencies interviewed Tesla executives and “asked them to strictly abide by Chinese laws and regulations, strengthen internal management, and implement corporate quality and safety regulations.”
Tesla acknowledged its “shortcomings in the business process,” and agreed to improve the quality and safety of its vehicles, the regulator said in the posting.
The electric carmaker has struggled with quality issues as it has scaled its production from tens of thousand cars a year to 500,000 in 2020. On social media, customers have documented numerous problems with new Teslas, including large gaps between body panels, poor paint jobs and chipped glass. Those complaints have been echoed in surveys about and reviews of the company’s cars by J.D. Power and Consumer Reports.
Last week, Tesla recalled 135,000 vehicles in the United States to deal with a problem with touch screens in its Model S and Model Y cars. The screens had been found to have a high rate of failures. Tesla had initially resisted recalling the cars but came under pressure to do so by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.
In a letter to the U.S. auto safety regulator last month, a Tesla executive said the screens, which drivers use to control many of the functions of their cars, were not meant to last more than five or six years.
The crypto- boosters around the office are celebrating Tesla's purchase of Bitcoin.
I think it's a brilliant move to get a number of new "crypto-millionaires" to buy cars from them without having to go through the hassle of converting their Bitcoin into US Dollars, potentially saving them taxes.
I also think it puts the company at risk to be caught short on cash at a time when Bitcoin is down.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/02/08/business/stock-market-today?type=styln-live-updates&label=business%20updates&index=1&action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage#tesla-quality-chinaQuoteChinese regulators met with executives from Tesla recently after several government agencies reported “an unusual acceleration” of complaints from consumers about battery fires and other quality issues with the company’s electric cars.
In a post on the Chinese social media platform WeChat, the State Administration for Market Regulation said officials from five government agencies interviewed Tesla executives and “asked them to strictly abide by Chinese laws and regulations, strengthen internal management, and implement corporate quality and safety regulations.”
Tesla acknowledged its “shortcomings in the business process,” and agreed to improve the quality and safety of its vehicles, the regulator said in the posting.
The electric carmaker has struggled with quality issues as it has scaled its production from tens of thousand cars a year to 500,000 in 2020. On social media, customers have documented numerous problems with new Teslas, including large gaps between body panels, poor paint jobs and chipped glass. Those complaints have been echoed in surveys about and reviews of the company’s cars by J.D. Power and Consumer Reports.
Last week, Tesla recalled 135,000 vehicles in the United States to deal with a problem with touch screens in its Model S and Model Y cars. The screens had been found to have a high rate of failures. Tesla had initially resisted recalling the cars but came under pressure to do so by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.
In a letter to the U.S. auto safety regulator last month, a Tesla executive said the screens, which drivers use to control many of the functions of their cars, were not meant to last more than five or six years.
I also think it puts the company at risk to be caught short on cash at a time when Bitcoin is down.
Production QC problems. Now, this has been hammered on many forums and there is expected to be some growing pains with a new production company. I'm not necessarily knocking them for some of the issues, but others raise concern for me. Tesla just announced that they consider an expensive memory chip a "wear item" and thus doesn't qualify for a recall. I don't want a computer based vehicle to have computer based wear items. Replacing a timing belt with a computer chip (that doesn't have a service interval, btw) is a lateral move at best.
For the price, there are other options that meet my needs better. The Rav4 prime has Toyota quality and for all intents and purposes is a more refined model Y.
QuoteFor the price, there are other options that meet my needs better. The Rav4 prime has Toyota quality and for all intents and purposes is a more refined model Y.
Good luck finding one. Toyota shipped all of 4k of them to the USA in all of 2020.
My random guess is less than 3% of Teslas will be bought in Bitcoin, but I'd be happy to have a more data driven estimate. My estimate would be about $1 billion BTC traded for Teslas per Year.
According to Yahoo Finance, BTC has a market cap of $865 billion. So even if Tesla gets $8 billion from selling cars and it's own purchases, that's 1% of the market cap.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BTC-USD?p=BTC-USD
But you are right in one way: if Musk tweets he's trying to buy up all Bitcoin in circulation, that tweet would send BTC soaring, regardless of it's truth. All he had to do is say Tesla is buying and accepting Bitcoin, and the price spiked over 25%!
And speaking of door handles, every single vehicle they make has a different handle. That's not a good move for a company trying to scale decent quality vehicles. It's basically the opposite of a Toyota move, and more of an exotic car move. I don't trust that they'll keep the stock or knowledge base to fix these handles in 10 years. If it's any kind of clue as to how they are designing the rest of the vehicle, I don't trust them.
[Musk] received four grants to buy 8.4 million Tesla shares in 2020. After paying the exercise price, those blocks of stock options were each worth $6.2 billion at Wednesday's closing price. The combined $24.8 billion value of those options alone is more than Musk was worth a year ago when Forbes calculated its billionaire's list, when he was ranked as the world's 31st richest person.
2021 and 2022 could be nearly as lucrative for him.
The company's annual financial filing this week disclosed that Musk will probably receive three additional options grants this year, each as large and as lucrative as those he received in 2020.
At current values, those three options tranches would be worth $18.6 billion.
Analysts are now forecasting that Tesla's 2022 financial results will likewise reach heights that would bring Musk three additional blocks of options. Tesla could hit one of those profit targets in 2021, which would mean Musk could match the four tranches of options he received last year.
Few investors are complaining about Musk's pay.
The stock's 743% rise in 2020 made it the stock market's biggest winner, as well as one of the most valuable companies in the world. That has quieted most of the criticism he might have faced.
"The cachet of Tesla is Musk," said Daniel Ives, tech analyst for Wedbush Securities. "The reason investors have not batted an eyelash is that due to Musk's strategic direction, Tesla is on top of the EV [electric vehicles] mountain going to the golden age of EVs. And he's put Tesla on the cusp of being a trillion-dollar market cap company."
The rise in Tesla's stock price, and his options to buy new shares, has made Musk the richest person on the planet, according to Bloomberg, surpassing Amazon (AMZN) founder Jeff Bezos.
Vanguard Group Inc, after a Form 13G filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission shows the firm purchased 57,814,310 shares of the automaker’s common stock. This makes Vanguard a 6.1% shareholder of the company, trailing only Elon Musk and another institutional investor in terms of holdings.
Vanguard filed the 13G filing with the SEC on February 10th with immediate effect. A document that discloses Vanguard’s purchase certifies the investment firm’s large-scale investment, making it the second-largest institutional shareholder of Tesla stock behind Susquehanna Securities, which owns 60.7 million shares, representing 6.5% of total ownership.
Can you explain how Tesla Insurance increases value to the company? They're not an insurance company. Making a move like this makes sense temporarily to correct for market analysis issues but long term? I would hope that their goal is to get out of insurance industry. But perhaps I'm missing something.
Tesla pushed all of these cars into this space. I think they obviously have the best electric cars on the market. But I suspect that it will be easier for companies like GM and Toyota to move into this space than it will for Tesla to prove out their production capabilities. That's a suspicion; Tesla does have a head start, but I think that it's easy to underestimate how quickly a company can change if they put their whole weight behind a transition. For instance, BattleBorn used to be the only reasonably priced Lithium battery in the retail market. They have a 5 year head start, and still make arguably the best product. But there is now heavy competition that makes them on in a sea of options. The folks who are optimistic about Tesla should apply that optimism to Ford or Nissan too.
Tesla pushed all of these cars into this space. I think they obviously have the best electric cars on the market. But I suspect that it will be easier for companies like GM and Toyota to move into this space than it will for Tesla to prove out their production capabilities. That's a suspicion; Tesla does have a head start, but I think that it's easy to underestimate how quickly a company can change if they put their whole weight behind a transition. For instance, BattleBorn used to be the only reasonably priced Lithium battery in the retail market. They have a 5 year head start, and still make arguably the best product. But there is now heavy competition that makes them on in a sea of options. The folks who are optimistic about Tesla should apply that optimism to Ford or Nissan too.
Exactly, that’s why I’m sitting here reading this thread on my Blackberry smartphone, watching movies on Blockbuster on demand streaming, taking pictures with my Kodak digital camera, and ordering packages online from K-Mart. Incumbents are notorious for having blind spots when it comes to disruption. Corporate culture and knowledge base is very hard to change. Sacrificing short-term profit for long-term transformation even harder. Some of the automotive incumbents will inevitably survive (Ford, VW, BMW, Toyota), but many will not (GM, FIAT/Chrysler). I won’t list out all the reasons why again, you can dig back through my posts on this thread if you care to. Suffice to save, people have been sayingthe challengers will easily catch-up to Tesla for years, and the gap has only grown.
So, how does Tesla make money on insurance? Simple, if Tesla vehicles, operating on autopilot reduce accidents by 50-90% then insurance rates go down. Since Tesla vehicles log all miles driven by Tesla vehicles, Tesla Insurance can tailor rates based on human driving behavior (i.e., rapid acceleration, hard breaking, etc.). Lastly, each Tesla vehicle has 8 external cameras. Any accident will have video evidence of who was at fault. This will greatly reduce the number of no fault, hit and run, and vandalism payouts by Tesla Insurance. Again, reducing rates for customers and profitability for Tesla Insurance.
So, how does Tesla make money on insurance? Simple, if Tesla vehicles, operating on autopilot reduce accidents by 50-90% then insurance rates go down. Since Tesla vehicles log all miles driven by Tesla vehicles, Tesla Insurance can tailor rates based on human driving behavior (i.e., rapid acceleration, hard breaking, etc.). Lastly, each Tesla vehicle has 8 external cameras. Any accident will have video evidence of who was at fault. This will greatly reduce the number of no fault, hit and run, and vandalism payouts by Tesla Insurance. Again, reducing rates for customers and profitability for Tesla Insurance.
How on earth do you think Tesla will be more capable at heuristics than ACTUAL insurance companies? Once other insurance companies have the data points, they will be able to accurately price in how much it costs to insure a Tesla. How do you think other insurance companies work? If Allstate uses crash records from the last 5 years and find that Teslas are cheaper to insure, they will offer a lower rate. Tesla can offer zero benefit here, with the exception that they might have more confidence in their vehicles before the data points play out on the streets. But real world data will quickly catch up and make that point moot (and perhaps Tesla might be overconfident and lose money on the deal)
I haven't seen a reason yet why Tesla insurance would be better that Allstate in the long run.
Tesla pushed all of these cars into this space. I think they obviously have the best electric cars on the market. But I suspect that it will be easier for companies like GM and Toyota to move into this space than it will for Tesla to prove out their production capabilities. That's a suspicion; Tesla does have a head start, but I think that it's easy to underestimate how quickly a company can change if they put their whole weight behind a transition. For instance, BattleBorn used to be the only reasonably priced Lithium battery in the retail market. They have a 5 year head start, and still make arguably the best product. But there is now heavy competition that makes them on in a sea of options. The folks who are optimistic about Tesla should apply that optimism to Ford or Nissan too.
Exactly, that’s why I’m sitting here reading this thread on my Blackberry smartphone, watching movies on Blockbuster on demand streaming, taking pictures with my Kodak digital camera, and ordering packages online from K-Mart. Incumbents are notorious for having blind spots when it comes to disruption. Corporate culture and knowledge base is very hard to change. Sacrificing short-term profit for long-term transformation even harder. Some of the automotive incumbents will inevitably survive (Ford, VW, BMW, Toyota), but many will not (GM, FIAT/Chrysler). I won’t list out all the reasons why again, you can dig back through my posts on this thread if you care to. Suffice to save, people have been sayingthe challengers will easily catch-up to Tesla for years, and the gap has only grown.
You are being very defensive. I don't have the energy or ability to type book long responses to your Gish Gallop of information. This might be hard to believe, but I could state your position in a way that you would agree with. I've been there, I understand the arguments. I get that Sears was in a position to be Amazon before Amazon was. None of this is new to me, and you aren't dropping any bombshells.
Do you think that Toyota knows less about running quality production on vehicle assembly than Tesla? Do you think the "move fast and break things" mindset of silicone valley will play out well on products and reputations that take decades to establish?
The bolded statement has been taken for truth, but there some current thinking that it is may be a poor model to use for projecting success. Basically, it's riddled with cognitive biases that are impossible to overcome, so it is effectively useless in anything but hindsight.
Tesla pushed all of these cars into this space. I think they obviously have the best electric cars on the market. But I suspect that it will be easier for companies like GM and Toyota to move into this space than it will for Tesla to prove out their production capabilities. That's a suspicion; Tesla does have a head start, but I think that it's easy to underestimate how quickly a company can change if they put their whole weight behind a transition. For instance, BattleBorn used to be the only reasonably priced Lithium battery in the retail market. They have a 5 year head start, and still make arguably the best product. But there is now heavy competition that makes them on in a sea of options. The folks who are optimistic about Tesla should apply that optimism to Ford or Nissan too.
Exactly, that’s why I’m sitting here reading this thread on my Blackberry smartphone, watching movies on Blockbuster on demand streaming, taking pictures with my Kodak digital camera, and ordering packages online from K-Mart. Incumbents are notorious for having blind spots when it comes to disruption. Corporate culture and knowledge base is very hard to change. Sacrificing short-term profit for long-term transformation even harder. Some of the automotive incumbents will inevitably survive (Ford, VW, BMW, Toyota), but many will not (GM, FIAT/Chrysler). I won’t list out all the reasons why again, you can dig back through my posts on this thread if you care to. Suffice to save, people have been sayingthe challengers will easily catch-up to Tesla for years, and the gap has only grown.
You are being very defensive. I don't have the energy or ability to type book long responses to your Gish Gallop of information. This might be hard to believe, but I could state your position in a way that you would agree with. I've been there, I understand the arguments. I get that Sears was in a position to be Amazon before Amazon was. None of this is new to me, and you aren't dropping any bombshells.
Do you think that Toyota knows less about running quality production on vehicle assembly than Tesla? Do you think the "move fast and break things" mindset of silicone valley will play out well on products and reputations that take decades to establish?
The bolded statement has been taken for truth, but there some current thinking that it is may be a poor model to use for projecting success. Basically, it's riddled with cognitive biases that are impossible to overcome, so it is effectively useless in anything but hindsight.
So, how does Tesla make money on insurance? Simple, if Tesla vehicles, operating on autopilot reduce accidents by 50-90% then insurance rates go down. Since Tesla vehicles log all miles driven by Tesla vehicles, Tesla Insurance can tailor rates based on human driving behavior (i.e., rapid acceleration, hard breaking, etc.). Lastly, each Tesla vehicle has 8 external cameras. Any accident will have video evidence of who was at fault. This will greatly reduce the number of no fault, hit and run, and vandalism payouts by Tesla Insurance. Again, reducing rates for customers and profitability for Tesla Insurance.
How on earth do you think Tesla will be more capable at heuristics than ACTUAL insurance companies? Once other insurance companies have the data points, they will be able to accurately price in how much it costs to insure a Tesla. How do you think other insurance companies work? If Allstate uses crash records from the last 5 years and find that Teslas are cheaper to insure, they will offer a lower rate. Tesla can offer zero benefit here, with the exception that they might have more confidence in their vehicles before the data points play out on the streets. But real world data will quickly catch up and make that point moot (and perhaps Tesla might be overconfident and lose money on the deal)
I haven't seen a reason yet why Tesla insurance would be better that Allstate in the long run.
So, how does Tesla make money on insurance? Simple, if Tesla vehicles, operating on autopilot reduce accidents by 50-90% then insurance rates go down. Since Tesla vehicles log all miles driven by Tesla vehicles, Tesla Insurance can tailor rates based on human driving behavior (i.e., rapid acceleration, hard breaking, etc.). Lastly, each Tesla vehicle has 8 external cameras. Any accident will have video evidence of who was at fault. This will greatly reduce the number of no fault, hit and run, and vandalism payouts by Tesla Insurance. Again, reducing rates for customers and profitability for Tesla Insurance.
How on earth do you think Tesla will be more capable at heuristics than ACTUAL insurance companies? Once other insurance companies have the data points, they will be able to accurately price in how much it costs to insure a Tesla. How do you think other insurance companies work? If Allstate uses crash records from the last 5 years and find that Teslas are cheaper to insure, they will offer a lower rate. Tesla can offer zero benefit here, with the exception that they might have more confidence in their vehicles before the data points play out on the streets. But real world data will quickly catch up and make that point moot (and perhaps Tesla might be overconfident and lose money on the deal)
I haven't seen a reason yet why Tesla insurance would be better that Allstate in the long run.
Because Tesla can get more detailed driving data on its drivers than All State can from any car. Tesla can determine how much a particular person drives on Tuesday and how fast. What routes they use. If a person keeps their tires inflated. Beamed from the car right to their database at any time. How does All State get that kind of data?
I don’t know if that’ll make pricing better or not. It will be the first pricing related to behavior in relatively real time though. The goal might be to influence good driving behavior directly through consumer price rather than reducing repair costs.
If Teslas are the only significant thing one can buy with Bitcoin for the next few years, that might increase sales of Teslas while at the same time slightly reducing the float of Bitcoins.
I wonder if Musk would like to hold a few tens of billions of dollars worth of Bitcoin in the Tesla treasury, because this would reduce circulation, and that would prop up the price of Bitcoin - his own little short squeeze - and would make profits look amazing while it lasts. He would have to rely on raising more dollar funds to pay expenses until employees and vendors are willing to accept Bitcoin - which means dilution.
Because Tesla can get more detailed driving data on its drivers than All State can from any car. Tesla can determine how much a particular person drives on Tuesday and how fast. What routes they use. If a person keeps their tires inflated. Beamed from the car right to their database at any time. How does All State get that kind of data?
I don’t know if that’ll make pricing better or not. It will be the first pricing related to behavior in relatively real time though. The goal might be to influence good driving behavior directly through consumer price rather than reducing repair costs.
How does All State get that kind of data?
Could GM spend 10s of billions to:
-build out a supercharger network worldwide
-replace their ICE engineers with expertise in software and battery tech
-design and build out their own battery cell manufacturing capacity or secure scarce capacity from a cell provider
-sacrifice short-term quarterly profits and dividends, thus angering share holders in the process
-retrain and retool their entire network of dealerships and repair shops to sell and service EVs while still maintaining service and sales for their existing ICE customers
-cannabilize their own profitable ICE vehicle lines to promote their new generation of EVs. Then convince customers to not go with the dedicated leader in EV tech, which is Tesla.
-retool production to build EVs that have to be designed from the ground up
-find and secure new EV part suppliers (GM is not vertically integrated to the extent Tesla is)
-convince their independently owned dealerships to promote nearly maintenance free EVs over ICE sales when dealers rely heavily on ongoing maintenance and repairs of ICE vehicles for profitability; and
-keep their labor unions happy during all this disruption.[/li][/list]
Sure, its all possible in theory, but I’d much rather be in Tesla’s shoes.
I won’t accuse you of being defensive for responding with your opinion.
Tesla produces the safest cars on the road, so insuring a fleet of Tesla vehicles will inherently be cheaper than insuring a cross-section of random ICE vehicles without the safety features, exterior cameras, FSD capabilities, etc.
Because Tesla can get more detailed driving data on its drivers than All State can from any car. Tesla can determine how much a particular person drives on Tuesday and how fast. What routes they use. If a person keeps their tires inflated. Beamed from the car right to their database at any time. How does All State get that kind of data?
I don’t know if that’ll make pricing better or not. It will be the first pricing related to behavior in relatively real time though. The goal might be to influence good driving behavior directly through consumer price rather than reducing repair costs.
Yeah this is wrong. There are already insurance companies doing this. Or near enough to not make a difference. It's not a very popular insurance method, yet.
https://www.wired.com/2016/11/car-insurance-pricing-broken-phone-fix/How does All State get that kind of data?
It's called Drivewise.
https://www.allstate.com/drive-wise.aspx\
In State Farm it's called Drive Safe. Progressive calls it Snapshot. SmartRide from Nationwide. Etc.
The issue is that Tesla is a tech company with poor customer service who is having trouble getting body panels to line up on a luxury sedan and you are saying that they are increasing their value by adding Insurance to their portfolio. I am suggesting that they are already in over their head and need to make sure that their 15inch screen that has the only controls for the car can last longer than 5 years (which they haven't).
The point isn't that they are ahead of the game on electric cars, it's that early adopters are usually incredibly forgiving for production mishaps, but that's a poor predictor of how well this will all play out. Perhaps Tesla is like blackberry, where they appear to be market dominant and have all of the production in the right places, but perhaps they aren't the most valuable car company in the world. We will find out.
I really do hope they iron out the issues. They seem to be treating cars like throwaway appliances, replaceable in a few years by a newer version, which in my opinion isn't a good use of resources.
Critics often focus on panel gaps. These are an issue in some of Tesla vehicles, no argument there. If owners notice panel gaps they can get them fixed before taking delivery of the car at no cost. Obviously, having panel gaps is not ideal, but it is not a performance or safety issue, like air bags that kill people or gas tanks that explode upon rear impact. Every manufacturer has recalls, Tesla can and is fixing the touch screen issue on a select number of early production vehicles. This is not even close to VW diesel gate or Takata air bags. I question the objectivity of those who focus on panel gaps while seeming to ignore the bigger picture, which is Tesla is creating some of the highest performing and safest production vehicles on the road. Vehicles that offer a total cost of ownership way below comparable ICE vehicles when you factor in fuel and maintenance savings. Are way better for the environment. Are capable of going 500k or more miles on the original electric drive drain and battery pack, providing more than double the life expectancy of an ICE vehicle. Its silly to say Tesla is making “throw away” vehicles given these realities. Panel gaps is the proverbial tree in the big ole forest.
Critics often focus on panel gaps. These are an issue in some of Tesla vehicles, no argument there. If owners notice panel gaps they can get them fixed before taking delivery of the car at no cost. Obviously, having panel gaps is not ideal, but it is not a performance or safety issue, like air bags that kill people or gas tanks that explode upon rear impact. Every manufacturer has recalls, Tesla can and is fixing the touch screen issue on a select number of early production vehicles. This is not even close to VW diesel gate or Takata air bags. I question the objectivity of those who focus on panel gaps while seeming to ignore the bigger picture, which is Tesla is creating some of the highest performing and safest production vehicles on the road. Vehicles that offer a total cost of ownership way below comparable ICE vehicles when you factor in fuel and maintenance savings. Are way better for the environment. Are capable of going 500k or more miles on the original electric drive drain and battery pack, providing more than double the life expectancy of an ICE vehicle. Its silly to say Tesla is making “throw away” vehicles given these realities. Panel gaps is the proverbial tree in the big ole forest.
Panel gaps are a tree in a forest, that's very true. I use them to represent my hesitancy to trust that they can make the rest of the car right. There are countless multiple hour long breakdowns of major issues of Tesla manufacturing. I'm sure you've read or watched them. The panel gaps are a quick reference to the situation as a whole.
And keep in mind, I'm not necessarily saying that Tesla makes a crap car. I'm saying I wouldn't own one, despite really wanting to. And I wouldn't own one because from what I've seen, they cut corners when manufacturing cars. Maybe they are corners that need to be cut, but I'll let others continue to be the guinea pigs on that one.
I'm not sure why you brought up Takata air bags; that recall also affected early model Teslas produced during the recall period.
With this whole conversation, I want to remind that we are not discussing whether or not Tesla is a successful company or likely to fail, we are talking about whether or not Tesla is worth more than Toyota, Nissan, GM, Ford, and Volkswagon combined, which, on the face of it is absurd (to me). Maybe I'm wrong. I don't see it.
wall of text
Quote from: ColoradoTribe link=topic=89600.msg2794318#msg2794318
wall of text
It may not sound like it from my posts, but I am a big supporter of Tesla. I NEVER said they weren't safe. I do, in fact, believe they are the safest cars on the road. You would have saved a ton of effort asking me rather than trying to convince me. Had you been reading carefully, you would have noticed my nod to this when I said they'd be cheaper to insure. I CLEARLY stated that the panel gaps were not the main issue. I was just throwing it as a quick reference to my overall perception of things.
We likely see eye to eye on many things. I am offering alternative viewpoints and feel as though they are not being received in good faith. You appear to have no intention of learning new things if they don't already fit your current agenda. It's a common human defense mechanism to reject those outside of your tribe. It's nearly impossible to override.
Now, before you get all up on me again, I'm not saying that I am guaranteed to have new info to offer. I'm saying that if I did, you are not in a mindset to receive it (or at least haven't shown to be). How can you expect me to be receptive of your viewpoint if you have no intention of being receptive to mine? I am in defense mode (as are you). How do we break the spell?
TESLA is now a great investment. Having 1.5B of bitcoin on the balance sheet gives them a huge advantage over other companies. They also have a sugar momma named Cathy. Trying to value them based on the cars is not useful at this point. They are an AI (software), energy tax credit, crypto, story driven company.
TESLA is now a great investment. Having 1.5B of bitcoin on the balance sheet gives them a huge advantage over other companies. They also have a sugar momma named Cathy. Trying to value them based on the cars is not useful at this point. They are an AI (software), energy tax credit, crypto, story driven company.
Is Tesla sufficiently good for the environment that it overcomes the negative environmental impact of the Bitcoin activity it is motivating?
Because Tesla can get more detailed driving data on its drivers than All State can from any car. Tesla can determine how much a particular person drives on Tuesday and how fast. What routes they use. If a person keeps their tires inflated. Beamed from the car right to their database at any time. How does All State get that kind of data?
I don’t know if that’ll make pricing better or not. It will be the first pricing related to behavior in relatively real time though. The goal might be to influence good driving behavior directly through consumer price rather than reducing repair costs.
Yeah this is wrong. There are already insurance companies doing this. Or near enough to not make a difference. It's not a very popular insurance method, yet.
https://www.wired.com/2016/11/car-insurance-pricing-broken-phone-fix/How does All State get that kind of data?
It's called Drivewise.
https://www.allstate.com/drive-wise.aspx\
In State Farm it's called Drive Safe. Progressive calls it Snapshot. SmartRide from Nationwide. Etc.
This is what bothers me about Tesla and Crypto:
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3663925-tesla-and-bitcoin (https://seekingalpha.com/news/3663925-tesla-and-bitcoin)
TESLA is now a great investment. Having 1.5B of bitcoin on the balance sheet gives them a huge advantage over other companies. They also have a sugar momma named Cathy. Trying to value them based on the cars is not useful at this point. They are an AI (software), energy tax credit, crypto, story driven company.
This part right here! Around a month ago I saw an article where they announced launching their own solar power inverter. They definitely seem to be an Energy Technology and Software who just happens to package it in a self produced car.
TESLA is now a great investment. Having 1.5B of bitcoin on the balance sheet gives them a huge advantage over other companies. They also have a sugar momma named Cathy. Trying to value them based on the cars is not useful at this point. They are an AI (software), energy tax credit, crypto, story driven company.
This part right here! Around a month ago I saw an article where they announced launching their own solar power inverter. They definitely seem to be an Energy Technology and Software who just happens to package it in a self produced car.
Maybe this is where I have it wrong (or, better said, if I have it wrong this is my blind spot).
Side question: is there anything special about their inverter, or is it mostly offered to complete the "Tesla" solar package?
They can produce an inverter designed to optimize the 4-way connection between solar, house demand, PowerWall and the grid.
They can produce an inverter designed to optimize the 4-way connection between solar, house demand, PowerWall and the grid.
I'm reading about it a bit more. It's nothing special other than working with the Tesla app. But makes sense from a bundling standpoint.
They can produce an inverter designed to optimize the 4-way connection between solar, house demand, PowerWall and the grid.
I'm reading about it a bit more. It's nothing special other than working with the Tesla app. But makes sense from a bundling standpoint.
Some people would also say the octovalve is nothing special. Move heat around. Automotive design engineers are impressed and think that way due to the level of integration, allowing for a lighter, more compact, more efficient unit.
If you think that octovalve is "just a heatpump"
I don't know that the Tesla inverter is anything special yet.
The new permanent magnet motor tech to increase efficiency on the S and X? Yeah, Prius did that first.
They can produce an inverter designed to optimize the 4-way connection between solar, house demand, PowerWall and the grid.
I'm reading about it a bit more. It's nothing special other than working with the Tesla app. But makes sense from a bundling standpoint.
They can produce an inverter designed to optimize the 4-way connection between solar, house demand, PowerWall and the grid.
I'm reading about it a bit more. It's nothing special other than working with the Tesla app. But makes sense from a bundling standpoint.
I'm not technical at all when it comes to electronic engineering. I read it and was more surprised that they are just now producing it. I would have thought it would have been one of the first things produced after they introduced their solar products.
Also, did you bother looking up the Volkswagen and Mercedes technologies? They are also more than "just a heatpump" as well. Leaf's is "just a heapump", but that can be forgiven because they released it two years sooner and on a car that costs 40K less than the first Tesla to use one.
"The bank practiced like all the other banks something nifty 50 investing and it bought the stocks of the 50 greatest, fastest, growing companies in America, IBM, Xerox, Kodak, Polaroid, Avon, Merck, Lilly, Texas Instruments, Hewlett-Packard. These companies were so adored and people were so sure that nothing could go wrong with them and people were so convinced that they would be fast growing in terms of profit that their prices just got too high. And if you had joined my bank when I did and bought these stocks and held them for five years, you would’ve lost almost all your money. And that’s an amazing thing. They were great companies and you could’ve lost, as I say, almost all your money, 80%, 90% in many cases.
Ten years later, I switched to high-yield bonds and I was asked to start the bank’s portfolio in high-yield bonds, which was one of the first from a financial institution. Now, I’m dealing with the worst companies in America. I say that a little bit ironically but, you know, by definition, high-yield bond issuers are not gilt-edged companies, and am making money steadily and safely.
So what did that experience tell you? If you can lose a lot of money in the best company and make a lot of money steadily and safely in the worst companies, what are the lessons? The main lesson is it’s not what you buy, it’s what you pay for, that determine whether something is a good investment or a bad investment.
One of the ways I like to say it, good investing is not a function of buying good things, it’s a function of buying things well. People should think about that and they should think about it until they understand it because if you don’t know the difference between buying the good asset and making a good investment, then you’re not gonna be a successful investor. Good investing comes from buying things for less than their intrinsic value. As my own experience has shown, there is no asset which is so good that it can’t become overpriced and thus a bad investment. There are very few assets which are so terrible that they can’t become under-priced and that’s a good investment. "
Elon Musk's net worth plunged last week as tech stocks got hammered and Tesla shares' stunning rise quickly unraveled.
Wall Street is growing increasingly nervous about rising bond yields, which could make borrowing more expensive. That could eat into corporate profits, which is why investors have begun to reverse some of the positions they took over the past year in high-growth but risky tech stocks like Tesla.
Tesla's (TSLA) stock fell 11.5% last week. Musk, who owns nearly 18% of Tesla's shares, bore most of the brunt of that massive sell-off.
Musk's wealth fell by $27 billion last week, according to Bloomberg's Billionaires Index. The decline in his net value is roughly equal to the entire fortune held by Dyson founder James Dyson -- the 52nd richest person in the world, according to Bloomberg.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/07/tech/elon-musk-net-worth/index.htmlYeah, it fell all the way down to its 12/2020 price!QuoteElon Musk's net worth plunged last week as tech stocks got hammered and Tesla shares' stunning rise quickly unraveled.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/07/tech/elon-musk-net-worth/index.htmlYeah, it fell all the way down to its 12/2020 price!QuoteElon Musk's net worth plunged last week as tech stocks got hammered and Tesla shares' stunning rise quickly unraveled.
The 24 hour new cycle is ridiculous - doubly so when applied to financial news.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/07/tech/elon-musk-net-worth/index.htmlYeah, it fell all the way down to its 12/2020 price!QuoteElon Musk's net worth plunged last week as tech stocks got hammered and Tesla shares' stunning rise quickly unraveled.
The 24 hour new cycle is ridiculous - doubly so when applied to financial news.
It's so true. The media and the financial world have such a short term focus it's crazy. I've been invested in Tesla since 2012 and don't plan on selling any time soon. I did sell some shares recently because I'm buying a new house and needed some cash but most of my shares are safely locked away.
I see the same thing from them with things like SpaceX starship. They are building prototypes. The fact that a few of them have exploded is not even a big deal but the press is all like "SpaceX fails again." They are landing rockets for reuse. How crazy is that?
No robot taxis anytime soon?So the clickbait title is directly contradicted by the actual quoted text. It's currently a Level 2 system. Doesn't say it "will always be" one.
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/39647/tesla-admits-current-full-self-driving-beta-will-always-be-a-level-2-system-emails
I see the same thing from them with things like SpaceX starship. They are building prototypes. The fact that a few of them have exploded is not even a big deal but the press is all like "SpaceX fails again." They are landing rockets for reuse. How crazy is that?
No robot taxis anytime soon?So the clickbait title is directly contradicted by the actual quoted text. It's currently a Level 2 system. Doesn't say it "will always be" one.
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/39647/tesla-admits-current-full-self-driving-beta-will-always-be-a-level-2-system-emails
To me the article isn't clear on if "Full Self Driving" will always be a Level 2 system (seems to be implied by title) or if Tesla is simply indicating that the features they are currently rolling out are still Level 2, but eventually they might roll out new "Full Self Driving" features that operate at higher levels. Self driving at levels higher than Level 2 are still 100% vaporware; I'm pretty sure that Elon would like that to change, but it sounds like Tesla's legal team is making sure that Tesla does not promise to achieve it.No robot taxis anytime soon?So the clickbait title is directly contradicted by the actual quoted text. It's currently a Level 2 system. Doesn't say it "will always be" one.
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/39647/tesla-admits-current-full-self-driving-beta-will-always-be-a-level-2-system-emails
To me the article isn't clear on if "Full Self Driving" will always be a Level 2 system (seems to be implied by title) or if Tesla is simply indicating that the features they are currently rolling out are still Level 2, but eventually they might roll out new "Full Self Driving" features that operate at higher levels. Self driving at levels higher than Level 2 are still 100% vaporware; I'm pretty sure that Elon would like that to change, but it sounds like Tesla's legal team is making sure that Tesla does not promise to achieve it.No robot taxis anytime soon?So the clickbait title is directly contradicted by the actual quoted text. It's currently a Level 2 system. Doesn't say it "will always be" one.
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/39647/tesla-admits-current-full-self-driving-beta-will-always-be-a-level-2-system-emails
I mostly missed the boat on Amazon, a company I thought had promise Long long ago. A DCA approach there would have yielded a fortune
Tesla intends to be more than just a car company. It’s woefully unprofitable. However, so has been amazon throughout its life.
Could TSLA be a 10 bagger a decade from now? I’m considering allocating 6% of new money and buying in every week or month.
Thoughts?
I mostly missed the boat on Amazon, a company I thought had promise Long long ago. A DCA approach there would have yielded a fortune
Tesla intends to be more than just a car company. It’s woefully unprofitable. However, so has been amazon throughout its life.
Could TSLA be a 10 bagger a decade from now? I’m considering allocating 6% of new money and buying in every week or month.
Thoughts?
1) I think Amazon has a lot of growth left in it, so I wouldn't avoid investing in it at all. Name a better run company? It is very diversified and the customer service is top notch and it's more profitable than ever.
2) Tesla is a good investment because people keep buying the stock. It may not be rational based on current earnings, but they are leaders in emerging industries that will inevitably become mainstream in the coming decades. I don't think it will be 10x higher in the next decade, but 3x-5x is realistic.
Just my two cents. I own shares in both companies. Just make sure you are properly diversified.
I wouldn't exactly consider that a ringing endorsment. Isn't everything supposed to triple in about 10 years - on average/at historic of about 11% per year? Quintupling is definitely an attractive draw, but with the bottom is just the average expectation, not very compelling...The rule of thumb is doubling every 5 years at 15%, or every 7 years at 10%.
To me the article isn't clear on if "Full Self Driving" will always be a Level 2 system (seems to be implied by title) or if Tesla is simply indicating that the features they are currently rolling out are still Level 2, but eventually they might roll out new "Full Self Driving" features that operate at higher levels. Self driving at levels higher than Level 2 are still 100% vaporware; I'm pretty sure that Elon would like that to change, but it sounds like Tesla's legal team is making sure that Tesla does not promise to achieve it.No robot taxis anytime soon?So the clickbait title is directly contradicted by the actual quoted text. It's currently a Level 2 system. Doesn't say it "will always be" one.
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/39647/tesla-admits-current-full-self-driving-beta-will-always-be-a-level-2-system-emails
Waymo has had Level 4 Autonomous driving on public streets since 2017
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waymo
Tesla has now made more money in buying and holding Bitcoin than it has in 13 years of Building Cars. I will be shorting again if it keep up this uptrend but via Ark etf.
Tesla has now made more money in buying and holding Bitcoin than it has in 13 years of Building Cars. I will be shorting again if it keep up this uptrend but via Ark etf.
Wow you are dense. Tesla has been pouring all their money on capital they don't care about profits right now but they care about expending as fast as they can. Are you going to tell now that Tesla makes most of their money from EV credits? Lol. Short have lost more than 40B that's more than all Tesla's cash infusion combined .... They should have bought GM instead. Have at it. GL.
https://youtu.be/sibfRCgMiFE (https://youtu.be/sibfRCgMiFE)
It was $707 a share on March 15th, and it's $618 now, so if SoccerLuvof4 did indeed short, they are doing great so far.
-W
Tesla has now made more money in buying and holding Bitcoin than it has in 13 years of Building Cars. I will be shorting again if it keep up this uptrend but via Ark etf.
Wow you are dense. Tesla has been pouring all their money on capital they don't care about profits right now but they care about expending as fast as they can. Are you going to tell now that Tesla makes most of their money from EV credits? Lol. Short have lost more than 40B that's more than all Tesla's cash infusion combined .... They should have bought GM instead. Have at it. GL
Waymo vs FSD beta on the same destination
https://youtu.be/sibfRCgMiFE (https://youtu.be/sibfRCgMiFE)
It was $707 a share on March 15th, and it's $618 now, so if SoccerLuvof4 did indeed short, they are doing great so far.
-W
I didn't short Tesla I shorted ARKK in and out a couple times and did pretty good. I am a total Bear against ARKK as the portfolio presently exists but wouldnt short it here. I have actually gone long a few names within the fund that have really gotten slaughtered BUT I dont know if I would buy Tesla and instead have been buying ways to play Volkswagen like POAHY which owns volkswagen. Also it was accidently leaked that in America they are changing there name to Voltswagen. Anyhow, that is just what I am doing and everyone needs to do there own thing and do there own homework. This is a very tough market right now and glad most of my money is in Vanguard but I do like to play around with some thesis here and there.
In case you missed it, this week the carmaker entered the spotlight after announcing that, at least in America, it was changing its name to "Voltswagen," and would use the new name in ads and on its electric vehicles. Volkswagen later backtracked and said it's definitely not changing its name and that the whole thing was an April Fools'-inspired marketing ploy.
While scanning news stories, I found this Motor Trend article comparing the big 4 electric trucks. In the $40k range, Tesla has better stats, while Ford has the customer base and aesthetics.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/2022-ford-f-150-lightning-vs-rivian-r1t-gmc-hummer-ev-cybertruck-specs-comparison/
People who own "heavy duty pickups" are overwhelmingly Republican - there's numerous articles on it, but this one has clear graphs on each vehicle type.
https://www.forbes.com/wheels/news/what-your-car-might-say-about-how-you-vote/
Because of that, I expect if Ford calls Tesla's cyber-truck a Silicon Valley toy, that will hit home (they haven't yet). I don't think Tesla's stats make up for it, and the aesthetics probably tilt things in favor of the Ford Lightning (their electric truck). I expect the truck competition to go heavily towards Ford.
Tesla to stop accepting Bitcoin as payment (CBC) (https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/tesla-bitcoin-payment-1.6024633)Is Tesla sufficiently good for the environment that it overcomes the negative environmental impact of the Bitcoin activity it is motivating?
GOOD question. I had always heard saving the environment was Musk's motivation, but this would be a step in the opposite direction, wouldn't it.
If it is revealed in a few months that Tesla reduced its Bitcoin holdings, we'll know the truth - that Musk was using his celebrity status to raise free money for Tesla and he's not a true believer in crypto.
If he sticks with it long-term, he has a different motive.
A lot less chatter on this thread after Tesla stock drops from 900$ to 600$ over the past 5 months. Its the classic thing - everyone will chat about an asset as its exploding, but when its not doing so well people dont seem to be bragging about their losses. Granted longer term investors are still doing very well on Tesla. Seems like the companies flashy bull run is in a rut now, with product delays and increasing competition. I have no idea what the future will hold so I am not making any arguments there.
A lot less chatter on this thread after Tesla stock drops from 900$ to 600$ over the past 5 months. Its the classic thing - everyone will chat about an asset as its exploding, but when its not doing so well people dont seem to be bragging about their losses. Granted longer term investors are still doing very well on Tesla. Seems like the companies flashy bull run is in a rut now, with product delays and increasing competition. I have no idea what the future will hold so I am not making any arguments there.
A lot less chatter on this thread after Tesla stock drops from 900$ to 600$ over the past 5 months. Its the classic thing - everyone will chat about an asset as its exploding, but when its not doing so well people dont seem to be bragging about their losses. Granted longer term investors are still doing very well on Tesla. Seems like the companies flashy bull run is in a rut now, with product delays and increasing competition. I have no idea what the future will hold so I am not making any arguments there.
A lot less chatter on this thread after Tesla stock drops from 900$ to 600$ over the past 5 months. Its the classic thing - everyone will chat about an asset as its exploding, but when its not doing so well people dont seem to be bragging about their losses. Granted longer term investors are still doing very well on Tesla. Seems like the companies flashy bull run is in a rut now, with product delays and increasing competition. I have no idea what the future will hold so I am not making any arguments there.
Thought this was an interesting and informative exercise. We’ve debated in the past whether it was worthwhile to assign a value to Tesla using traditional PE ratio metrics, considering Tesla is still in it's rapid growth phase. Appears Tesla may make this PE debate moot by the end of the year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrtdmnLJ-qI&list=RDCMUCMmJ5nBx9ibaBo4LegyQ52w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrtdmnLJ-qI&list=RDCMUCMmJ5nBx9ibaBo4LegyQ52w)
And yet someone buying in the day this thread was posted sits on a 102% annual return, for a compounded total return of 954%. I would not be complaining if I had bought shares then, despite a 5 month slide. I did not buy and do not own shares outside of vtsax, but still think the answer to the question in 2018 was apparently a resounding "yes."
Is it possible? Certainly. Tesla just needs to execute to achieve existing, stated goals and maintain their current growth rate. No guarantee and some external factors could slow progress, but I don’t see any of this as far-fetched or as Tesla needing to catch lightning in a bottle. Margins continue to grow. Increase volume on top of increasing margins and revenue snowballs quickly.
Curious, why die laughing?
Is it possible? Certainly. Tesla just needs to execute to achieve existing, stated goals and maintain their current growth rate. No guarantee and some external factors could slow progress, but I don’t see any of this as far-fetched or as Tesla needing to catch lightning in a bottle. Margins continue to grow. Increase volume on top of increasing margins and revenue snowballs quickly.
Curious, why die laughing?
Interesting question. I'd be extremely tickled for sure.
Telsa has just been such a roller coaster and all the naysaying and shortsellers, etc the past few years or so. If it is all tied up in a neat bow by the end of this year/into next and all the profitability, growth, and PE questions put to rest, I'd just find it extremely amusing. Perhaps just a bit of oxygen would get me through though.
I do rather dislike musk, but I have to allign myself with all that tesla has accomplished and is going to accomplish with the postive environmental aspect of EVs. My next vehicle will definitely be a tesla, to not only go to an EV, but to support everything that tesla has done to push the market in the EV direction. Kind of tying into another thread - survey of per person spending with many arguments about conspicuous consumption/yearly spend. Maybe buying any electric vehicle is a good move for the planet, and many may opt for cheaper options, but I think buying a tesla is really supporting that at a much higher - and important - level.
In terms of stock pricing, I also hear a lot people saying it's too late to buy into tesla, but this vid is predicting the price could tripple in about 18 months? That would make now a really good time to buy in. Is anyone who owns it buying more?
We all have it in our portfolios now, so there's that.
I guess my laughter could be classifeid under delighted.
My next vehicle will definitely be a tesla, to not only go to an EV, but to support everything that tesla has done to push the market in the EV direction. Kind of tying into another thread - survey of per person spending with many arguments about conspicuous consumption/yearly spend. Maybe buying any electric vehicle is a good move for the planet, and many may opt for cheaper options, but I think buying a tesla is really supporting that at a much higher - and important - level.
My next vehicle will definitely be a tesla, to not only go to an EV, but to support everything that tesla has done to push the market in the EV direction. Kind of tying into another thread - survey of per person spending with many arguments about conspicuous consumption/yearly spend. Maybe buying any electric vehicle is a good move for the planet, and many may opt for cheaper options, but I think buying a tesla is really supporting that at a much higher - and important - level.
They are also doing boneheaded things like forgoing traditional steering wheels and turn signal stalks. None of it makes any sense from a human factors or testing standpoint.
I absolutely love what they've done and are doing to the EV world, but something to me seems off about how they go about product development. Their overall vision is unmatched, but the more weird updates they do the less I trust them. It's like they're trying to distill some Platonian essence of vehicle at the expense of reality.
In terms of stock pricing, I also hear a lot people saying it's too late to buy into tesla, but this vid is predicting the price could tripple in about 18 months? That would make now a really good time to buy in. Is anyone who owns it buying more?
We all have it in our portfolios now, so there's that.
I guess my laughter could be classifeid under delighted.
In terms of stock pricing, I also hear a lot people saying it's too late to buy into tesla, but this vid is predicting the price could tripple in about 18 months? That would make now a really good time to buy in. Is anyone who owns it buying more?
We all have it in our portfolios now, so there's that.
I guess my laughter could be classifeid under delighted.
https://companiesmarketcap.com/automakers/largest-automakers-by-market-cap/
Tesla currently is not just the automaker with the highest market cap; it's worth the next highest 5 put together. If its value tripled, it would be worth 8x as much as Toyota. Do you believe it will eventually earn 8x what Toyota does and 25x what GM does?
They're making a $25k model in China...I'd be very interested in a $25k Tesla hatchback.
I'll turn it back around: Why do you think it make sense to compare Tesla to Toyota or VW or GM instead of FAANG companies?
I'll turn it back around: Why do you think it make sense to compare Tesla to Toyota or VW or GM instead of FAANG companies?
Is Tesla growing 10x faster than Apple or Google?
Comparing Tesla's margin and earnings to legacy auto doesn't make any sense. The parts and assembly are completely different and battery costs are still dropping. I was asked to make a projection at "industry standard" margins earlier in the thread once which was absurd. TM is best in legacy class 9% net margin, but Tesla has 20% net margin potential like Google and Apple. The ROIC is the reason its market cap is so high, and the margins it's able to do while building 2 factories is incredible. After those ramp, Tesla can do $25 billion in earnings in 2023 exceeding Toyota earnings with half the revenue. That's ~29 P/E of their price today and approximately the P/E of companies like Apple and Google. The market expects Tesla to grow into its price. Now envision it's 2023 and Tesla is building more factories or gets FSD off the ground. A company settles at a P/E when growth slows. Tesla can grow through the rest of this decade. TSLA is not expensive right now, IMO.
In order for Tesla to have a similar PE as AAPL or GOOG, the price would have to stagnate for years until earnings caught up. Or, the price would have to drop. Either way, that means that Tesla stock doesn't seem like such a good investment at this time.
In order for Tesla to have a similar PE as AAPL or GOOG, the price would have to stagnate for years until earnings caught up. Or, the price would have to drop. Either way, that means that Tesla stock doesn't seem like such a good investment at this time.
Today's market cap relative to 2023 earnings. Tesla isn't mature and gets growth PE; I was trying to explain today's price and why it's closer to FAANG than Auto (ROIC and Net Margin). I was also trying to say imagine continuing growth through the rest of the decade. I think it means it's a fantastic investment.
https://companiesmarketcap.com/automakers/largest-automakers-by-market-cap/
Tesla currently is not just the automaker with the highest market cap; it's worth the next highest 5 put together. If its value tripled, it would be worth 8x as much as Toyota. Do you believe it will eventually earn 8x what Toyota does and 25x what GM does?
They're making a $25k model in China...I'd be very interested in a $25k Tesla hatchback.
When will I be able to buy one in the USA, do you reckon?
I can't see Tesla putting much effort into the "Model 2"while there's a months-long wait list for their $50k+ cars.
They're making a $25k model in China...I'd be very interested in a $25k Tesla hatchback.
When will I be able to buy one in the USA, do you reckon?
I can't see Tesla putting much effort into the "Model 2"while there's a months-long wait list for their $50k+ cars.
If the rumors are true, they've created a prototype "Model 2" in China. They're a long way from mass production even in China. I don't see it being generally available here any sooner than 2023 at the earliest.
Predictably, I was immediately spanked......
Predictably, I was immediately spanked......
I was wondering if you bought before or after the NHTSA investigation was announced...
Predictably, I was immediately spanked......
I was wondering if you bought before or after the NHTSA investigation was announced...
after, but apparently it had more to give up today. Not a lot of winners today at all, will see where it goes.
Lots of chatter today that Michael Burry, the subject of The Big Short, has opened puts on Tesla and on ARKK.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/big-short-michael-burry-tesla-stock-cathie-wood-ark-etf-2021-8
here ye! here ye! here ye!
let it be known i bought tesla today - 100 shares at 683.11 (on today's dip) - in my roth. I had sold my VSGAX last week
I will be answering the op questions daily. silently. to myself.
Burry increased his puts to $731 million as of 6/30/21. Will be interesting to see what he did after Tesla released Q2 earnings.That's not what he paid in option premium, they could be atm or deep otm, we don't know. It's weird how the media reports it.
Burry increased his puts to $731 million as of 6/30/21. Will be interesting to see what he did after Tesla released Q2 earnings.That's not what he paid in option premium, they could be atm or deep otm, we don't know. It's weird how the media reports it.
here ye! here ye! here ye!
let it be known i bought tesla today - 100 shares at 683.11 (on today's dip) - in my roth. I had sold my VSGAX last week
I will be answering the op questions daily. silently. to myself.
Welcome aboard. Can’t say if you’ll be up or down in two days or two months, but think you’ll be pretty happy two years from now and beyond. Beyond making money the natural world needs Tesla to succeed, so take pleasure in that while we wait for the stock price to ramp up again. Bought a few more shares myself on this dip.
Lots of chatter today that Michael Burry, the subject of The Big Short, has opened puts on Tesla and on ARKK.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/big-short-michael-burry-tesla-stock-cathie-wood-ark-etf-2021-8
Yeah, he has destroyed billions of investor capital over the years betting against Tesla. Must be a hell of a salesman to explain his returns over the past 5 years. Or maybe he just spins the "I called the housing bubble! A can do that with stocks too!" angle.
New York (CNN Business)Tesla wants to do more than sell you an electric car. It wants to start selling electricity itself — at least to some people in Texas.
It has filed with the Texas Public Utility Commission to generate electricity and sell it directly to the public. Details about its exact plans are not included in the application, and Tesla did not respond to a request for comment. But the company said in its filing it plans to sell electricity directly to consumers, with a focus on those who already own Tesla cars.
The filing was first reported by Texas Monthly.
The company best known for being the largest electric vehicle company in the world also has a solar energy unit. Most of that business is focused on installing solar panels on homes or other buildings, which are then linked to batteries, which Tesla has branded as Powerwalls, used to store excess power captured during the day to provide power at night.
But Tesla has a very low-profile business known as "Megapack" that builds very large batteries used to store utility-scale amounts of electricity. It built the first of those massive batteries in Hornsdale, Australia, in 2017, and has since expanded the product to other locations.
"Battery storage is transforming the global electric grid and is an increasingly important element of the world's transition to sustainable energy," it said in a 2019 blog post. "To match global demand for massive battery storage projects like Hornsdale, Tesla designed and engineered a new battery product specifically for utility-scale projects."
Elon Musk says Tesla is building a humanoid robot
CEO Elon Musk announced Tesla is working on a "friendly" humanoid robot. For now, he has a human in a robot suit.
Indeed I work for a large, public utility, and we are also selling power onto the grid--profitably--from a large, utility scale batter that we operate in Texas.
here ye! here ye! here ye!
let it be known i bought tesla today - 100 shares at 683.11 (on today's dip) - in my roth. I had sold my VSGAX last week
I will be answering the op questions daily. silently. to myself.
Indeed I work for a large, public utility, and we are also selling power onto the grid--profitably--from a large, utility scale batter that we operate in Texas.
For maximum of about 6 hours, but usually less, right? Those batteries reduce peak load, which is critical, but it's not really the answer to getting off of renewables. There isn't enough lithium in the world to use batteries as long term grid storage (10days of insufficient generation by renewables).
here ye! here ye! here ye!
let it be known i bought tesla today - 100 shares at 683.11 (on today's dip) - in my roth. I had sold my VSGAX last week
I will be answering the op questions daily. silently. to myself.
Up $5,000 in 2 weeks. Not too shabby.
Indeed I work for a large, public utility, and we are also selling power onto the grid--profitably--from a large, utility scale batter that we operate in Texas.
For maximum of about 6 hours, but usually less, right? Those batteries reduce peak load, which is critical, but it's not really the answer to getting off of renewables. There isn't enough lithium in the world to use batteries as long term grid storage (10days of insufficient generation by renewables).
Aren’t transmission lines still going to be available to move renewable energy generation from areas where the sun is shining or wind is blowing to areas where they are not? I assume you don’t predict the wind and sun won’t cooperate for days on end over an entire region? I suspect renewable generation can be over built to provide a buffer as well. It’s not like we’ll be wasting fuel if we over build the wind farms or solar farms. I suspect that between battery backup and using transmission lines to move production around regionally, we can eventually get away from fossils fuel generation completely. Eventually everyone will also have their own emergency backup power parked in their garage (EV battery). The average EV car battery can provide multiple days of backup if used conservatively. Any one paying attention to all the extreme weather, drought, fires, etc. realizes whatever the challenges of this energy transition the current system is a road to ruin if we don’t hit the off ramp NOW.
Indeed I work for a large, public utility, and we are also selling power onto the grid--profitably--from a large, utility scale batter that we operate in Texas.
For maximum of about 6 hours, but usually less, right? Those batteries reduce peak load, which is critical, but it's not really the answer to getting off of renewables. There isn't enough lithium in the world to use batteries as long term grid storage (10days of insufficient generation by renewables).
Aren’t transmission lines still going to be available to move renewable energy generation from areas where the sun is shining or wind is blowing to areas where they are not? I assume you don’t predict the wind and sun won’t cooperate for days on end over an entire region? I suspect renewable generation can be over built to provide a buffer as well. It’s not like we’ll be wasting fuel if we over build the wind farms or solar farms. I suspect that between battery backup and using transmission lines to move production around regionally, we can eventually get away from fossils fuel generation completely. Eventually everyone will also have their own emergency backup power parked in their garage (EV battery). The average EV car battery can provide multiple days of backup if used conservatively. Any one paying attention to all the extreme weather, drought, fires, etc. realizes whatever the challenges of this energy transition the current system is a road to ruin if we don’t hit the off ramp NOW.
Aren’t transmission lines still going to be available to move renewable energy generation from areas where the sun is shining or wind is blowing to areas where they are not? I assume you don’t predict the wind and sun won’t cooperate for days on end over an entire region? I suspect renewable generation can be over built to provide a buffer as well. It’s not like we’ll be wasting fuel if we over build the wind farms or solar farms. I suspect that between battery backup and using transmission lines to move production around regionally, we can eventually get away from fossils fuel generation completely. Eventually everyone will also have their own emergency backup power parked in their garage (EV battery). The average EV car battery can provide multiple days of backup if used conservatively. Any one paying attention to all the extreme weather, drought, fires, etc. realizes whatever the challenges of this energy transition the current system is a road to ruin if we don’t hit the off ramp NOW.
What software does Tesla sell as a service? (Do they sell non-EV software?)
If anyone is interested in a deep dive on projected Tesla Q3 financials. Looking like another record setter. And this before a car has rolled off the Berlin or Austin lines.
What software does Tesla sell as a service? (Do they sell non-EV software?)
You can buy FSD for $199/month instead of $10k for unlimited access.
If anyone is interested in a deep dive on projected Tesla Q3 financials. Looking like another record setter. And this before a car has rolled off the Berlin or Austin lines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UieeGa82kLw&t=1930s
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/15/michael-burry-says-hes-no-longer-betting-against-tesla-and-that-his-put-position-was-just-a-trade.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/15/michael-burry-says-hes-no-longer-betting-against-tesla-and-that-his-put-position-was-just-a-trade.html)
Burry’s out.
What software does Tesla sell as a service? (Do they sell non-EV software?)
You can buy FSD for $199/month instead of $10k for unlimited access.
Tesla has also sold an over-the-air software update, "Acceleration Boost" for $2,000. Likely to be infotainment offerings in the future as well.
Tesla passes FB in valuation for the moment.
Stock currently trading at intraday all-time high (~$909).
Tesla SP set new intraday high-water mark this morning ($979) on news that Hertz has placed order for 100,000 Tesla EVs. That represents 1/4 of their rental fleet. Tesla passes FB in valuation for the moment.
$10,000 invested when this thread started would now be $134,287 now. I'm thinking the answer to the OPs question is yes.
I still don't own any outside of VTSAX, sadly. No plans to either.
>$200/share(>20%) increase in price in the past 7 days, when will it stop!
Just read through the first page of this thread...Pretty amazing difference between the content of posts before the first profitable quarter and after 9 consecutive profitable quarters.
I've made a 3,500% return on TSLA. I feel like that's a sign I should cash in, but its only 3.8% of my portfolio. What do you all think? I guess at this point I'm never going to lose money, so maybe just hold it until I need money (or forever and give it to my kid?).
I raise this question only because I'm not sure where something goes from an investment to speculation...I honestly don't think the company is worth 1 Trillion, but what do I know?
Tesla is a maturing company. Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative. Demand is on the rise, margins are increasing, new models are on the horizon, two new factories will start production in the next 1-3 months. The energy storage and grid services side of the business is just getting started. FSD is more speculative, but could be massively profitable if solved fully. I personally won’t be shedding any of my shares in the next 2-3 years at least.
I've made a 3,500% return on TSLA. I feel like that's a sign I should cash in, but its only 3.8% of my portfolio. What do you all think? I guess at this point I'm never going to lose money, so maybe just hold it until I need money (or forever and give it to my kid?).I am in a similar boat at a little over 2000%. I cashed out my original investment pre-split and now I figure that the investment is all profit anyways...so let er ride!
I raise this question only because I'm not sure where something goes from an investment to speculation...I honestly don't think the company is worth 1 Trillion, but what do I know?
Tesla is a maturing company. Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative.
Tesla is a maturing company. Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative. Demand is on the rise, margins are increasing, new models are on the horizon, two new factories will start production in the next 1-3 months. The energy storage and grid services side of the business is just getting started. FSD is more speculative, but could be massively profitable if solved fully. I personally won’t be shedding any of my shares in the next 2-3 years at least.
JFC I'll cut off my own nose to spite my face with the crystal clear fanboyism here.
I love Colorado and I'm a fan of Tesla but your tone makes me despise both of them. I didn't leave my religion to be preached that Tesla can do No Wrong.
Tesla is a maturing company. Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative. Demand is on the rise, margins are increasing, new models are on the horizon, two new factories will start production in the next 1-3 months. The energy storage and grid services side of the business is just getting started. FSD is more speculative, but could be massively profitable if solved fully. I personally won’t be shedding any of my shares in the next 2-3 years at least.
JFC I'll cut off my own nose to spite my face with the crystal clear fanboyism here.
I love Colorado and I'm a fan of Tesla but your tone makes me despise both of them. I didn't leave my religion to be preached that Tesla can do No Wrong.
Tesla is a maturing company. Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative.
TSLA has a PE ratio of 354 compared to 7 at GM. GM will release 12 electric models in the coming months, and have 20 by 2023.
I remember ripping on the Apple fanboys way back when. Ooops!
That's true (that people have been/are buying Tesla stock based on what they will do going forward, not their existing sales/infrastructure) but it's also a little misleading, because there's still a ceiling on the valuation *somewhere* even if Tesla keeps rolling sixes and kicking butt.
They're already valued too high even if they were the only car company on earth, probably. So their other ventures are going to need to pan out just as well as the car business, or even better, while the car business continues kicking ass at the same time, in order to put them in any kind of normal P/E range in the medium/long term. Or their stock price will have to stagnate.
That's assuming someone someday cares about P/E for Tesla, of course. Irrational longer than solvent, and all.
I personally hope they pull it off and I'm a pretty big fanboy when it comes to the cars, tech, and CEO, but I don't invest based on hopes.
-W
That's true (that people have been/are buying Tesla stock based on what they will do going forward, not their existing sales/infrastructure) but it's also a little misleading, because there's still a ceiling on the valuation *somewhere* even if Tesla keeps rolling sixes and kicking butt.
They're already valued too high even if they were the only car company on earth, probably. So their other ventures are going to need to pan out just as well as the car business, or even better, while the car business continues kicking ass at the same time, in order to put them in any kind of normal P/E range in the medium/long term. Or their stock price will have to stagnate.
That's assuming someone someday cares about P/E for Tesla, of course. Irrational longer than solvent, and all.
I personally hope they pull it off and I'm a pretty big fanboy when it comes to the cars, tech, and CEO, but I don't invest based on hopes.
-W
TSLA - started with electric cars; but somehow optimize the hell out of production to have a really high margin; added insurance business; well they also have the energy business which is just starting; if they get FSD working, it'll be a bonus but I won't count on it. Who knows what else they're going to come up with?
TSLA has a PE ratio of 354 compared to 7 at GM. GM will release 12 electric models in the coming months, and have 20 by 2023.
TSLA has a PE ratio of 354 compared to 7 at GM. GM will release 12 electric models in the coming months, and have 20 by 2023.
*YAWN* The tired "legacy manufacturers will eat Tesla's lunch" FUD has been around at least since 2008. You would think by now at least one of them would be doing it. Even the most well positioned EV competitor (VW) says that Tesla is significantly ahead of them.
GM the "manufacturing powerhouse" started shipping the Bolt in 2016. Model 3 started shipping in 2017. Did you ever pay attention to the relative volumes? GM managed about 2k/month for all Bolt variants in 2017 and has never matched that number. Model 3/Y are being produced at over 75k/month. Number of models is irrelevant. Overall sales and margin are relevant.
Along those lines, GM's overall production/sales are down 30% year-on-year, while Tesla is up 50%. Growth versus decay.
I guess in some ways failing to really ramp Bolt was a blessing in disguise since GM has a recall out on every single Bolt battery pack.
I'll also note that GM has $110,000,000,000 in debt. $110 Billion.
Tesla definitely has their flaws, but I still see no evidence of a real BEV push from most of the legacy manufacturers.
It's really unfortunate that the legendary investor Peter Lynch wrote about the P/E ratios in his books in the 1990's that inadvertently gave people the false sense of confidence on this indicator. During the meteoric rise of AMZN and NFLX, their p/e ratios were never "reasonable". History is a good teacher. If you study many of the past high performers, you can find many resemblances. There are many between AMZN, NFLX, and Tesla. Here's one - the people who work there are some of the best in their fields. In Tesla's case, they have top talents in software, hardware, chemistry, metal, aerodynamics/physics, on and on. When smart people get together, they have what Napolean Hill called the mastermind effect that allow them to constantly churn out great ideas:
AMZN - people thought bookselling and later retail in general is a low margin business. You couldn't justify a high stock price. Well, they later brought out AWS, Prime, advertising which all greatly increased their margin.
NFLX - DVD rental? They kept reinventing - streaming, streaming contents from other studios, then started making their own contents; now getting into gaming and selling merchandise.
TSLA - started with electric cars; but somehow optimize the hell out of production to have a really high margin; added insurance business; well they also have the energy business which is just starting; if they get FSD working, it'll be a bonus but I won't count on it. Who knows what else they're going to come up with?
Tesla is a maturing company. Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative. Demand is on the rise, margins are increasing, new models are on the horizon, two new factories will start production in the next 1-3 months. The energy storage and grid services side of the business is just getting started. FSD is more speculative, but could be massively profitable if solved fully. I personally won’t be shedding any of my shares in the next 2-3 years at least.
JFC I'll cut off my own nose to spite my face with the crystal clear fanboyism here.
I love Colorado and I'm a fan of Tesla but your tone makes me despise both of them. I didn't leave my religion to be preached that Tesla can do No Wrong.
I remember ripping on the Apple fanboys way back when. Ooops!
Nobody is claiming that GM is going to eat Tesla's lunch. Or VW. Or Ford. Or Any other manufacturer (of which there are lots, and most are bringing out EVs at a solid clip in the coming years).
Tesla will likely remain the dominant EV maker. Doesn't mean it is a good investment at these levels. After all, they are priced more than all of them combined. It's a massively speculative bubble.
It's really unfortunate that the legendary investor Peter Lynch wrote about the P/E ratios in his books in the 1990's that inadvertently gave people the false sense of confidence on this indicator. During the meteoric rise of AMZN and NFLX, their p/e ratios were never "reasonable". History is a good teacher. If you study many of the past high performers, you can find many resemblances. There are many between AMZN, NFLX, and Tesla. Here's one - the people who work there are some of the best in their fields. In Tesla's case, they have top talents in software, hardware, chemistry, metal, aerodynamics/physics, on and on. When smart people get together, they have what Napolean Hill called the mastermind effect that allow them to constantly churn out great ideas:
AMZN - people thought bookselling and later retail in general is a low margin business. You couldn't justify a high stock price. Well, they later brought out AWS, Prime, advertising which all greatly increased their margin.
NFLX - DVD rental? They kept reinventing - streaming, streaming contents from other studios, then started making their own contents; now getting into gaming and selling merchandise.
TSLA - started with electric cars; but somehow optimize the hell out of production to have a really high margin; added insurance business; well they also have the energy business which is just starting; if they get FSD working, it'll be a bonus but I won't count on it. Who knows what else they're going to come up with?
This post is survivorship bias.
There are many thousands of more examples of high flying P/E stocks that are either no longer relevant or where the market was right that the companies would be dominant, but wrong on that it expected far too much from their dominance.
You have some of the best examples of where the trade went right. But so many more big names that looked obviously poised for greatness that are nowhere, or maybe are even still very much relevant but still growing into their obscene valuation.
It's really unfortunate that the legendary investor Peter Lynch wrote about the P/E ratios in his books in the 1990's that inadvertently gave people the false sense of confidence on this indicator. During the meteoric rise of AMZN and NFLX, their p/e ratios were never "reasonable". History is a good teacher. If you study many of the past high performers, you can find many resemblances. There are many between AMZN, NFLX, and Tesla. Here's one - the people who work there are some of the best in their fields. In Tesla's case, they have top talents in software, hardware, chemistry, metal, aerodynamics/physics, on and on. When smart people get together, they have what Napolean Hill called the mastermind effect that allow them to constantly churn out great ideas:
AMZN - people thought bookselling and later retail in general is a low margin business. You couldn't justify a high stock price. Well, they later brought out AWS, Prime, advertising which all greatly increased their margin.
NFLX - DVD rental? They kept reinventing - streaming, streaming contents from other studios, then started making their own contents; now getting into gaming and selling merchandise.
TSLA - started with electric cars; but somehow optimize the hell out of production to have a really high margin; added insurance business; well they also have the energy business which is just starting; if they get FSD working, it'll be a bonus but I won't count on it. Who knows what else they're going to come up with?
This post is survivorship bias.
There are many thousands of more examples of high flying P/E stocks that are either no longer relevant or where the market was right that the companies would be dominant, but wrong on that it expected far too much from their dominance.
You have some of the best examples of where the trade went right. But so many more big names that looked obviously poised for greatness that are nowhere, or maybe are even still very much relevant but still growing into their obscene valuation.
My post was to suggest investors to disregard the PE ratios, and find other ways to measure companies. But then someone used a PE comparison(again) to say my post was survivorship bias. Strange. Looks like PE ratios are very ingrained. Where did folks learn that "low PE is good"? I'm trying to understand how this concept got passed around.
For folks who have been using PE as one of their top indicators, I hope you can consider at least move its importance down. More importantly, my wish is for new stock investors to not get into the PE trap.
I was thinking a bit about the apple comparison on my afternoon walk yesterday - for some bizarre reason! - and it struck me as being rather apt. there is the phone which is major and a couple of other things, like tesla is a car which is major, and then has a couple of other things.
I think the cachet of the tesla name and apple back then is similar. Then there will be the lesser models from other manufacturers, like the androids. But while people buy fewer cars than phones, buying a tesla for 30k or more vs 3-4 iphones at maybe 1k, is kind of a huge difference.
Seems like tesla is going to be a huge share of market, especially if climate change get a lot of companies to quickly phase out ICE engines. Which I hope for the sake of us all they do, and soon!
And I wouldn't discount the large number of tesla fanboys and fangirls as a huge consumer base and marketing effect. I can't wait to buy mine! But - I am putting it off for a while.
I can imagine the fan club living their lives - moving house to house and always upgrading to tesla roofs, showing off their tesla cars, and generating interest as they go along. Buying tesla for their kids 16th birthdays! lol - they can afford it cuz tesla stock.....
Tesla's global EV market share has been dropping (now at ~15%). As less expensive EVs come out, it'll probably slide further. Not everyone can afford a $40k+ EV.
GM sold almost as many Wuling Mini EVs as the Model 3. It's a small EV but it's inexpensive and has a 300km range.
Tesla's global EV market share has been dropping (now at ~15%). As less expensive EVs come out, it'll probably slide further. Not everyone can afford a $40k+ EV.
GM sold almost as many Wuling Mini EVs as the Model 3. It's a small EV but it's inexpensive and has a 300km range.
Well, yeah - they have to sell something like 10 Wulings to get the same revenue as one Model 3 and have a noticeably lower gross margin. So they need to sell something like 20 times as many units for equivalent gross profit.
Apple is a great comparison - they are nowhere close to the majority of the cell phone market in unit count. They do take the lion's share of cell for profits.
Oh, and your marketshare numbers appear to be incorrect. Got a source? Preferably one only looking at actual BEVs, not lumping in anything with a plug.
Note: I have never bought Tesla as an individual stock and haven't told others to do so. But the analysis is interesting.
A total of 2,65 million new EVs found new owners during the first half of 2021
[...]
Tesla leads global EV sales with 386 000 units (all BEV) delivered during H1, followed by the Volkswagen Group with 332 000 units, thereof 172 700 BEVs and 159 400 PHEVs. GM comes in 3rd with 227 000 units (221k were BEV)
Tesla's global EV market share has been dropping (now at ~15%). As less expensive EVs come out, it'll probably slide further. Not everyone can afford a $40k+ EV.
GM sold almost as many Wuling Mini EVs as the Model 3. It's a small EV but it's inexpensive and has a 300km range.
Well, yeah - they have to sell something like 10 Wulings to get the same revenue as one Model 3 and have a noticeably lower gross margin. So they need to sell something like 20 times as many units for equivalent gross profit.
Apple is a great comparison - they are nowhere close to the majority of the cell phone market in unit count. They do take the lion's share of cell for profits.
Oh, and your marketshare numbers appear to be incorrect. Got a source? Preferably one only looking at actual BEVs, not lumping in anything with a plug.
Note: I have never bought Tesla as an individual stock and haven't told others to do so. But the analysis is interesting.
For Q1/Q2:Quote from: https://www.ev-volumes.com/A total of 2,65 million new EVs found new owners during the first half of 2021
[...]
Tesla leads global EV sales with 386 000 units (all BEV) delivered during H1, followed by the Volkswagen Group with 332 000 units, thereof 172 700 BEVs and 159 400 PHEVs. GM comes in 3rd with 227 000 units (221k were BEV)
386/2650 = 14.56% of EV (BEV+PHEV) sales
From the 3rd chart, BEVs are 69% of plugin sales, giving us 1.83M BEVs. --> 386k/1830 = 21.09% of BEV sales
Compare that to 2020 Q1/Q2, where 991k EVs were sold, and 694k (70%*) were BEVs. Tesla sold 180k of those, or nearly 26% of BEV sales.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/502208/tesla-quarterly-vehicle-deliveries/
As 21<26, their market share is declining, at least from Q1/Q2 2020 to Q1/Q2 2021.
The Jan-August numbers in Europe show VW outselling Tesla in BEV cars.
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/10/24/q3-saw-europes-ev-share-break-new-ground-above-20-overtake-diesel-for-first-time/
If you have complete Q3 numbers, pls update. From what I can tell, Tesla did regain some ground in Q3. (They ship their cars in batches so their monthly sales are choppy.)
The point being that, as competition increases, particularly on the lower end, Tesla may well lose its dominance. Porsche is an important carmaker and makes great cars but most people in the world drive Ford or GM or Tata.
* Not an exact % for Q1/Q2 but it's remained fairly stable over the past few years.
Tesla's global EV market share has been dropping (now at ~15%). As less expensive EVs come out, it'll probably slide further. Not everyone can afford a $40k+ EV.
GM sold almost as many Wuling Mini EVs as the Model 3. It's a small EV but it's inexpensive and has a 300km range.
Well, yeah - they have to sell something like 10 Wulings to get the same revenue as one Model 3 and have a noticeably lower gross margin. So they need to sell something like 20 times as many units for equivalent gross profit.
Apple is a great comparison - they are nowhere close to the majority of the cell phone market in unit count. They do take the lion's share of cell for profits.
Oh, and your marketshare numbers appear to be incorrect. Got a source? Preferably one only looking at actual BEVs, not lumping in anything with a plug.
Note: I have never bought Tesla as an individual stock and haven't told others to do so. But the analysis is interesting.
For Q1/Q2:Quote from: https://www.ev-volumes.com/A total of 2,65 million new EVs found new owners during the first half of 2021
[...]
Tesla leads global EV sales with 386 000 units (all BEV) delivered during H1, followed by the Volkswagen Group with 332 000 units, thereof 172 700 BEVs and 159 400 PHEVs. GM comes in 3rd with 227 000 units (221k were BEV)
386/2650 = 14.56% of EV (BEV+PHEV) sales
From the 3rd chart, BEVs are 69% of plugin sales, giving us 1.83M BEVs. --> 386k/1830 = 21.09% of BEV sales
Compare that to 2020 Q1/Q2, where 991k EVs were sold, and 694k (70%*) were BEVs. Tesla sold 180k of those, or nearly 26% of BEV sales.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/502208/tesla-quarterly-vehicle-deliveries/
As 21<26, their market share is declining, at least from Q1/Q2 2020 to Q1/Q2 2021.
The Jan-August numbers in Europe show VW outselling Tesla in BEV cars.
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/10/24/q3-saw-europes-ev-share-break-new-ground-above-20-overtake-diesel-for-first-time/
If you have complete Q3 numbers, pls update. From what I can tell, Tesla did regain some ground in Q3. (They ship their cars in batches so their monthly sales are choppy.)
The point being that, as competition increases, particularly on the lower end, Tesla may well lose its dominance. Porsche is an important carmaker and makes great cars but most people in the world drive Ford or GM or Tata.
* Not an exact % for Q1/Q2 but it's remained fairly stable over the past few years.
Kinda silly to talk about Tesla market share as a meaningful metric at this time. More accurate to say ICE is losing mark share to EV. The size of the overall EV pie is growing rapidly. Tesla is making as many vehicles as they can as fast as they can given their battery supply and factory capacity. Tesla raised vehicle prices multiple times in recent months. Tesla’s production will go from roughly 900k vehicles this year to around 1.5 million in 2022. In the context of 50% YOY growth and increasing margins, talking about market share is really meaningless until the total EV market stops expanding (i.e., eating ICE market share). I’d rather Tesla have 10% of a 50 million vehicle/year market than 25% of a 4 million vehicle/year market (as an example). I’d happily “settle” for that reduced EV market share.
Tesla just announced plans to open its supercharger network to non-Tesla EVs on a monthly subscription basis. Pilot program in Europe is now live. Tesla just generated a new revenue stream over night using existing, paid off, infrastructure. Besides the immediate revenue, a bunch of EV owners are now going to be exposed to the Tesla App and the supercharger network. Why pay to access these superchargers, when you could just buy a Tesla and skip the subscription fee?
Guessing GM and Ford will now announce similar plans for their network of Level 3 chargers. Oh wait...
Tesla just announced plans to open its supercharger network to non-Tesla EVs on a monthly subscription basis. Pilot program in Europe is now live. Tesla just generated a new revenue stream over night using existing, paid off, infrastructure. Besides the immediate revenue, a bunch of EV owners are now going to be exposed to the Tesla App and the supercharger network. Why pay to access these superchargers, when you could just buy a Tesla and skip the subscription fee?
Guessing GM and Ford will now announce similar plans for their network of Level 3 chargers. Oh wait...
Thanks for the update! I saw it was up again, but I was tired to investigate :).
elon musk - he is a crafy devil for sure.
Tesla just announced plans to open its supercharger network to non-Tesla EVs on a monthly subscription basis. Pilot program in Europe is now live. Tesla just generated a new revenue stream over night using existing, paid off, infrastructure. Besides the immediate revenue, a bunch of EV owners are now going to be exposed to the Tesla App and the supercharger network. Why pay to access these superchargers, when you could just buy a Tesla and skip the subscription fee?
Guessing GM and Ford will now announce similar plans for their network of Level 3 chargers. Oh wait...
Thanks for the update! I saw it was up again, but I was tired to investigate :).
elon musk - he is a crafy devil for sure.
SP currently at ATH at $1,175. Guessing we’ll test $1,200 at some point this week.
Thank goodness I have been investing in VTSAX and got the Tesla rocketship ride without even trying... because I was definitely a doubter 5 years ago
Yet another revenue stream. Mastermind effect at Tesla. That's one of their competitive advantages.
Yet another revenue stream. Mastermind effect at Tesla. That's one of their competitive advantages.
I think the most interesting part of it is that tesla is in a position to make money off the EVs that other companies are selling. Just a shade of genius there I think!
Tesla took the largest EV vulnerability - charging on the road - and turned into an advantage before they went toward become one of the major auto manufactures.
Aside from money and stock and such - it's fantastic to watch a single person's vision change the world in a really positive way. Why he gets away with being such an ass at times. In fact, I sometimes wonder if he is an ass as part of his master plan?
Tesla just announced plans to open its supercharger network to non-Tesla EVs on a monthly subscription basis. Pilot program in Europe is now live. Tesla just generated a new revenue stream over night using existing, paid off, infrastructure. Besides the immediate revenue, a bunch of EV owners are now going to be exposed to the Tesla App and the supercharger network. Why pay to access these superchargers, when you could just buy a Tesla and skip the subscription fee?
Guessing GM and Ford will now announce similar plans for their network of Level 3 chargers. Oh wait...
Thanks for the update! I saw it was up again, but I was tired to investigate :).
elon musk - he is a crafy devil for sure.
SP currently at ATH at $1,175. Guessing we’ll test $1,200 at some point this week.
...or today.
Finished the day at $1208. Some sort of squeeze is going down. Stock price is over $6000 in pre-split dollars. Still holding 95% of my shares.
There will be an inevitable pull-back once it finds a local high. Probably 10-15%. Anybody want to call the top?
Some folks say Tesla cannot have a market cap bigger than the sum of all the auto makers, especially when Tesla EV market share is declining. This assumes the Total Addressable Market(TAM) is the world car purchases. That is like saying Netflix's TAM was US DVD rentals(back in the days), or Apple's TAM is world cellphone purchases. Tesla's TAM is continuously expanding.
btw, capturing huge EV market share is not in Tesla's mission. What they want to do is spelled out in their mission statement. Investors need to dig deep to correctly evaluate a company.
3) It discourages the other OEMs from building out their own charging network by beating them to the punch. The other OEMs would have to offer a superior network or an inferior network for a lesser or no fee to compete. Down the road Tesla could simultaneously raise the subscription fee, while offering a year of free charging to new customers who trade in their existing non-Tesla EV.
5) It draws further attention to the other OEMs lack of dedicated, level 3 charging infrastructure.
That's not because it's implausible that Tesla *could* dominate to that extent by being just more awesome than everyone else, but because national borders/protectionist laws and anti-trust laws mean that there's no practical way for that to actually happen.
3) It discourages the other OEMs from building out their own charging network by beating them to the punch. The other OEMs would have to offer a superior network or an inferior network for a lesser or no fee to compete. Down the road Tesla could simultaneously raise the subscription fee, while offering a year of free charging to new customers who trade in their existing non-Tesla EV.
Other charging networks offer similar charging without the subscription fee don't they? Tesla isn't the only Level 3 option. To look at it another way, why would a customer pay $20/mo more just to have access to Superchargers if the cost to charge on Tesla's network isn't cheaper? If this ends up being a big money maker for Tesla, it seems like it might encourage others to join in, rather than discourage them.5) It draws further attention to the other OEMs lack of dedicated, level 3 charging infrastructure.
Does this really matter to EV buyers? Do they care who owns the chargers, or do they just want to be able to charge? Other charging networks have their own issues, but they do exist, they offer similar charging rates, and they're growing just like the Supercharger network.
3) It discourages the other OEMs from building out their own charging network by beating them to the punch. The other OEMs would have to offer a superior network or an inferior network for a lesser or no fee to compete. Down the road Tesla could simultaneously raise the subscription fee, while offering a year of free charging to new customers who trade in their existing non-Tesla EV.
Other charging networks offer similar charging without the subscription fee don't they? Tesla isn't the only Level 3 option. To look at it another way, why would a customer pay $20/mo more just to have access to Superchargers if the cost to charge on Tesla's network isn't cheaper? If this ends up being a big money maker for Tesla, it seems like it might encourage others to join in, rather than discourage them.5) It draws further attention to the other OEMs lack of dedicated, level 3 charging infrastructure.
Does this really matter to EV buyers? Do they care who owns the chargers, or do they just want to be able to charge? Other charging networks have their own issues, but they do exist, they offer similar charging rates, and they're growing just like the Supercharger network.
I am not aware of another charging network with anywhere near the number of Level 3 chargers. Certainly not with the geographical coverage and density as Tesla’s charging network.
If Tesla makes good money on the charging subscription I do think it still discourages other OEMs from entering the market. The legacy OEMs wouldn’t be able to compete with Tesla’s network until they built out their own network to a competitive level. Tesla has around a 10 year head start, it would take at least a couple years and billions of dollars to get their network to something approaching where Tesla is today. They’d have to spend that money at the same time they’re spending billions to transition to EV manufacturing and while they are losing sales of profitable ICE models. I don’t see how they could even afford to undertake the task, even if they wanted to try and compete. Maybe if there are really generous charging infrastructure subsidies?
Yes, they will care who owns the chargers, because Tesla drivers won’t be paying the subscription fee and will get first crack at open charging stalls in high traffic areas. Tesla is not going to piss off their loyal customers by creating charger scarcity for them. Getting better access and avoiding the subscription fee alone would convince a lot of EV enthusiast to buy a Tesla next time around.
Some folks say Tesla cannot have a market cap bigger than the sum of all the auto makers, especially when Tesla EV market share is declining. This assumes the Total Addressable Market(TAM) is the world car purchases. That is like saying Netflix's TAM was US DVD rentals(back in the days), or Apple's TAM is world cellphone purchases. Tesla's TAM is continuously expanding.
btw, capturing huge EV market share is not in Tesla's mission. What they want to do is spelled out in their mission statement. Investors need to dig deep to correctly evaluate a company.
I see nothing to disagree with there. But in context, Tesla's market cap has increased by the equivalent of Ford every week for the last few weeks. The increase in Tesla's market cap just today is equal to double Honda's market cap.
I get it. Tesla is more than just a car company. But there is a lot of future growth priced into the stock right now.
Some folks say Tesla cannot have a market cap bigger than the sum of all the auto makers, especially when Tesla EV market share is declining. This assumes the Total Addressable Market(TAM) is the world car purchases. That is like saying Netflix's TAM was US DVD rentals(back in the days), or Apple's TAM is world cellphone purchases. Tesla's TAM is continuously expanding.
btw, capturing huge EV market share is not in Tesla's mission. What they want to do is spelled out in their mission statement. Investors need to dig deep to correctly evaluate a company.
Some folks say Tesla cannot have a market cap bigger than the sum of all the auto makers, especially when Tesla EV market share is declining. This assumes the Total Addressable Market(TAM) is the world car purchases. That is like saying Netflix's TAM was US DVD rentals(back in the days), or Apple's TAM is world cellphone purchases. Tesla's TAM is continuously expanding.
btw, capturing huge EV market share is not in Tesla's mission. What they want to do is spelled out in their mission statement. Investors need to dig deep to correctly evaluate a company.
I am not going to speak for everyone, but no one is saying that Tesla absolutely cannot have a bigger market cap. It's not technically impossible or even without precedent. But it does bring up questions about it's valuation. It's a data point that can be a warning sign. Don't you find it odd that the market seems to think that none of the other auto makers combined can keep up with Tesla, ever? It just seems wild to not even question it or vigorously defend it (to me). I get all the arguments about TAM, but they come across as "yes, but" to me... I'm happy about Tesla so far. As others have mentioned, they've done quite well for my VTSAX funds. It's easy to imagine Tesla cars and chargers everywhere in 10 years and they've done a good marketing job for the rest of their vision. It's harder to imagine other companies doing it because it hasn't happened yet... but we're valuating Tesla on things that haven't happened yet (re:TAM). There's kind of a double standard of reasoning in there. And psychologically it's harder to agree to or imagine things that don't fit your worldview or reputation. So folks who are all in on everything Tesla (or are completely anti-EV like my parents) get tossed in with that grain of salt when I evaluate their claims. I would do the same for me, and have the same psychological obstacles in my line of thought, so I am trying to keep an open dialogue.
I really think this quote :
"You are never dedicated to do something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it’s going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kind of dogmas or goals, it’s always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt."
– Robert M. Pirsig
Before the huge run-up, Tesla was such an asymmetric bet for the people who saw it - 50% downside, multi-bagger upside.
Also, it's not true that no one is saying that Tesla absolutely cannot have a bigger market cap. If you go back to the thread, you'll see that mentioned a few times.
3) It discourages the other OEMs from building out their own charging network by beating them to the punch. The other OEMs would have to offer a superior network or an inferior network for a lesser or no fee to compete. Down the road Tesla could simultaneously raise the subscription fee, while offering a year of free charging to new customers who trade in their existing non-Tesla EV.
Other charging networks offer similar charging without the subscription fee don't they? Tesla isn't the only Level 3 option. To look at it another way, why would a customer pay $20/mo more just to have access to Superchargers if the cost to charge on Tesla's network isn't cheaper? If this ends up being a big money maker for Tesla, it seems like it might encourage others to join in, rather than discourage them.5) It draws further attention to the other OEMs lack of dedicated, level 3 charging infrastructure.
Does this really matter to EV buyers? Do they care who owns the chargers, or do they just want to be able to charge? Other charging networks have their own issues, but they do exist, they offer similar charging rates, and they're growing just like the Supercharger network.
I am not aware of another charging network with anywhere near the number of Level 3 chargers. Certainly not with the geographical coverage and density as Tesla’s charging network.
Electrify America isn't doing too badly. Their network is open to all EVs, and it doesn't require a subscription, you only pay for the electricity used:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brookecrothers/2020/12/06/state-of-electric-car-fast-charging-late-2020-tesla-supercharger-network-vs-electrify-america-vs-evgo/?sh=3ed2c25012e6If Tesla makes good money on the charging subscription I do think it still discourages other OEMs from entering the market. The legacy OEMs wouldn’t be able to compete with Tesla’s network until they built out their own network to a competitive level. Tesla has around a 10 year head start, it would take at least a couple years and billions of dollars to get their network to something approaching where Tesla is today. They’d have to spend that money at the same time they’re spending billions to transition to EV manufacturing and while they are losing sales of profitable ICE models. I don’t see how they could even afford to undertake the task, even if they wanted to try and compete. Maybe if there are really generous charging infrastructure subsidies?
VW technically owns the EA charging network, and they'd be open to other OEM investors, so a few OEMs could pool money pretty easily:
https://electrek.co/2021/07/07/electrify-america-rumored-billion-partner/
Tesla is the only one that's been proprietary to this point. All other charging is open to anybody. No reason to think that it would be proprietary moving forward. It's not going to be each OEM paying for a bunch of different charging networks, it's going to be Tesla's network against a network that's funded by a bunch of other OEMs, energy companies, "Big Oil" type companies, etc.Yes, they will care who owns the chargers, because Tesla drivers won’t be paying the subscription fee and will get first crack at open charging stalls in high traffic areas. Tesla is not going to piss off their loyal customers by creating charger scarcity for them. Getting better access and avoiding the subscription fee alone would convince a lot of EV enthusiast to buy a Tesla next time around.
Sure, Tesla drivers might prefer Superchargers for convenience, the possibility of free charging, etc. What I'm suggesting is that non-Tesla EV owners may not be willing to pay a subscription, plus charging costs just to use Superchargers when other options exist that are likely to be cheaper.
Tesla launches new solar roof tiles with more power, higher efficiency
https://outline.com/Tg4HKG
New version is 22% more efficient (i.e., 22% more power from same size tile).
Constantly accelerating the pace of innovation. Hard for the competition to catch up to a moving target.
Tesla launches new solar roof tiles with more power, higher efficiency
https://outline.com/Tg4HKG
New version is 22% more efficient (i.e., 22% more power from same size tile).
Constantly accelerating the pace of innovation. Hard for the competition to catch up to a moving target.
While this is nice and I'm glad they are improving it - their real problem with solar roof has been volume and execution, not solar efficiency.
My last post on this topic as I don’t think we’ll get to a consensus here.
For Tesla’s pilot program in Norway non-Tesla users can either pay an increased rate for the juice they use OR pay a monthly subscription fee to pay the same rate for the juice as Tesla owners.
The title of the Electrify America article seems to be at odds with the content. Per the article you linked, Tesla had 20,000 fast chargers (10,000 in America) as of December 2020 and EA had 2,200. That’s a huge difference if you're planning a road trip.
I could be wrong, but I don’t really seeing the OEMs going in together to create a competing network. That’s a level of coordination and cost sharing that would be difficult to pull off. It’s why each cellular carrier has their own network of overlapping cell towers instead of going in together. Direct competitors rarely cooperate on this level of undertaking.
EA or legacy OEMs might get there eventually, but it’ll take years. It’s not like Tesla is standing still. They are rapidly adding territory and stations. Tesla has added over 5,000 Level 3 stalls to their charging network so far in 2021, to bring the total to over 25,000. In the article you cited, EVGo and GM announced plans to build 2700 chargers over the next 5 years. Tesla will install twice that capacity in 2021.
My last post on this topic as I don’t think we’ll get to a consensus here.
For Tesla’s pilot program in Norway non-Tesla users can either pay an increased rate for the juice they use OR pay a monthly subscription fee to pay the same rate for the juice as Tesla owners.
The title of the Electrify America article seems to be at odds with the content. Per the article you linked, Tesla had 20,000 fast chargers (10,000 in America) as of December 2020 and EA had 2,200. That’s a huge difference if you're planning a road trip.
I could be wrong, but I don’t really seeing the OEMs going in together to create a competing network. That’s a level of coordination and cost sharing that would be difficult to pull off. It’s why each cellular carrier has their own network of overlapping cell towers instead of going in together. Direct competitors rarely cooperate on this level of undertaking.
EA or legacy OEMs might get there eventually, but it’ll take years. It’s not like Tesla is standing still. They are rapidly adding territory and stations. Tesla has added over 5,000 Level 3 stalls to their charging network so far in 2021, to bring the total to over 25,000. In the article you cited, EVGo and GM announced plans to build 2700 chargers over the next 5 years. Tesla will install twice that capacity in 2021.
I think it makes a lot of sense for Tesla to open their network up to others. It cannot hurt them, and any revenue it generates is extremely high margin. I'm just not convinced that it's going to be some game changing move that secures Tesla's dominance, even as more and more competent EVs hit the market.
Tesla currently has about 57% of the fast chargers in the US per the most recent data that I can find:
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/11/us-charging-infrastructure-is-outpacing-forecasts-study-finds/
The remainder are on other charging networks (EA, EV Go, Chargepoint, etc) that can be used by anyone. But that means that a random EV owner has thousands of alternative options, often in similar locations to Tesla's network. It's not as if each OEM has to spend billions on it's own proprietary charging network the way that Tesla has. Because the other networks aren't proprietary, you can add them all up. Consumers will have a choice in most cases between Superchargers or other networks. If it's more expensive to use the superchargers than another option, then most consumers will just get the cheapest juice available to them. It's not like there are different qualities of electricity and Tesla's electrons are better for an EV than EA's. It's just going to come down to price and convenience. Tesla's larger network currently has the convenience advantage in most places, but as more competing chargers are brought online, that convenience advantage erodes. I've attached maps of Tesla's North American fast chargers and Non-Tesla fast chargers. There's more overlap than differences.
My last post on this topic as I don’t think we’ll get to a consensus here.
For Tesla’s pilot program in Norway non-Tesla users can either pay an increased rate for the juice they use OR pay a monthly subscription fee to pay the same rate for the juice as Tesla owners.
The title of the Electrify America article seems to be at odds with the content. Per the article you linked, Tesla had 20,000 fast chargers (10,000 in America) as of December 2020 and EA had 2,200. That’s a huge difference if you're planning a road trip.
I could be wrong, but I don’t really seeing the OEMs going in together to create a competing network. That’s a level of coordination and cost sharing that would be difficult to pull off. It’s why each cellular carrier has their own network of overlapping cell towers instead of going in together. Direct competitors rarely cooperate on this level of undertaking.
EA or legacy OEMs might get there eventually, but it’ll take years. It’s not like Tesla is standing still. They are rapidly adding territory and stations. Tesla has added over 5,000 Level 3 stalls to their charging network so far in 2021, to bring the total to over 25,000. In the article you cited, EVGo and GM announced plans to build 2700 chargers over the next 5 years. Tesla will install twice that capacity in 2021.
I think it makes a lot of sense for Tesla to open their network up to others. It cannot hurt them, and any revenue it generates is extremely high margin. I'm just not convinced that it's going to be some game changing move that secures Tesla's dominance, even as more and more competent EVs hit the market.
Tesla currently has about 57% of the fast chargers in the US per the most recent data that I can find:
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/11/us-charging-infrastructure-is-outpacing-forecasts-study-finds/
The remainder are on other charging networks (EA, EV Go, Chargepoint, etc) that can be used by anyone. But that means that a random EV owner has thousands of alternative options, often in similar locations to Tesla's network. It's not as if each OEM has to spend billions on it's own proprietary charging network the way that Tesla has. Because the other networks aren't proprietary, you can add them all up. Consumers will have a choice in most cases between Superchargers or other networks. If it's more expensive to use the superchargers than another option, then most consumers will just get the cheapest juice available to them. It's not like there are different qualities of electricity and Tesla's electrons are better for an EV than EA's. It's just going to come down to price and convenience. Tesla's larger network currently has the convenience advantage in most places, but as more competing chargers are brought online, that convenience advantage erodes. I've attached maps of Tesla's North American fast chargers and Non-Tesla fast chargers. There's more overlap than differences.
I agree that Tesla network is superior, but with that said aren't we basically arguing that BP gas stations pump gas faster than at Shell stations? I don't see charging revenue as a needle mover on the Tesla balance sheet. I think the perception of it being a superior charging network is more valuable than the revenue generated from it. According to US Dept of Energy 80% of EV users charge at home anyways...
My last post on this topic as I don’t think we’ll get to a consensus here.
For Tesla’s pilot program in Norway non-Tesla users can either pay an increased rate for the juice they use OR pay a monthly subscription fee to pay the same rate for the juice as Tesla owners.
The title of the Electrify America article seems to be at odds with the content. Per the article you linked, Tesla had 20,000 fast chargers (10,000 in America) as of December 2020 and EA had 2,200. That’s a huge difference if you're planning a road trip.
I could be wrong, but I don’t really seeing the OEMs going in together to create a competing network. That’s a level of coordination and cost sharing that would be difficult to pull off. It’s why each cellular carrier has their own network of overlapping cell towers instead of going in together. Direct competitors rarely cooperate on this level of undertaking.
EA or legacy OEMs might get there eventually, but it’ll take years. It’s not like Tesla is standing still. They are rapidly adding territory and stations. Tesla has added over 5,000 Level 3 stalls to their charging network so far in 2021, to bring the total to over 25,000. In the article you cited, EVGo and GM announced plans to build 2700 chargers over the next 5 years. Tesla will install twice that capacity in 2021.
I think it makes a lot of sense for Tesla to open their network up to others. It cannot hurt them, and any revenue it generates is extremely high margin. I'm just not convinced that it's going to be some game changing move that secures Tesla's dominance, even as more and more competent EVs hit the market.
Tesla currently has about 57% of the fast chargers in the US per the most recent data that I can find:
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/11/us-charging-infrastructure-is-outpacing-forecasts-study-finds/
The remainder are on other charging networks (EA, EV Go, Chargepoint, etc) that can be used by anyone. But that means that a random EV owner has thousands of alternative options, often in similar locations to Tesla's network. It's not as if each OEM has to spend billions on it's own proprietary charging network the way that Tesla has. Because the other networks aren't proprietary, you can add them all up. Consumers will have a choice in most cases between Superchargers or other networks. If it's more expensive to use the superchargers than another option, then most consumers will just get the cheapest juice available to them. It's not like there are different qualities of electricity and Tesla's electrons are better for an EV than EA's. It's just going to come down to price and convenience. Tesla's larger network currently has the convenience advantage in most places, but as more competing chargers are brought online, that convenience advantage erodes. I've attached maps of Tesla's North American fast chargers and Non-Tesla fast chargers. There's more overlap than differences.
This article states there are roughly 69,000 public (non-Tesla) charging connections in the US. Of those, only 16% or 11,040, are Level 3, which they define as being able to charge an EV to 75% in 30 minutes. By comparison, Tesla has over 25,000 Level 3 connections capable of providing 80% charge in 20 minutes. Sorry, but even combining all the other public networks, with no coordination on geographic coverage, slower charging rates, fewer locations, separate apps, and mismatched charging ports, it comes no where close to competing with Tesla’s supercharging network.
https://www.myev.com/research/comparisons/comparing-public-electric-vehicle-charging-networks
I agree that Tesla network is superior, but with that said aren't we basically arguing that BP gas stations pump gas faster than at Shell stations? I don't see charging revenue as a needle mover on the Tesla balance sheet. I think the perception of it being a superior charging network is more valuable than the revenue generated from it. According to US Dept of Energy 80% of EV users charge at home anyways...
My last post on this topic as I don’t think we’ll get to a consensus here.
For Tesla’s pilot program in Norway non-Tesla users can either pay an increased rate for the juice they use OR pay a monthly subscription fee to pay the same rate for the juice as Tesla owners.
The title of the Electrify America article seems to be at odds with the content. Per the article you linked, Tesla had 20,000 fast chargers (10,000 in America) as of December 2020 and EA had 2,200. That’s a huge difference if you're planning a road trip.
I could be wrong, but I don’t really seeing the OEMs going in together to create a competing network. That’s a level of coordination and cost sharing that would be difficult to pull off. It’s why each cellular carrier has their own network of overlapping cell towers instead of going in together. Direct competitors rarely cooperate on this level of undertaking.
EA or legacy OEMs might get there eventually, but it’ll take years. It’s not like Tesla is standing still. They are rapidly adding territory and stations. Tesla has added over 5,000 Level 3 stalls to their charging network so far in 2021, to bring the total to over 25,000. In the article you cited, EVGo and GM announced plans to build 2700 chargers over the next 5 years. Tesla will install twice that capacity in 2021.
I think it makes a lot of sense for Tesla to open their network up to others. It cannot hurt them, and any revenue it generates is extremely high margin. I'm just not convinced that it's going to be some game changing move that secures Tesla's dominance, even as more and more competent EVs hit the market.
Tesla currently has about 57% of the fast chargers in the US per the most recent data that I can find:
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/11/us-charging-infrastructure-is-outpacing-forecasts-study-finds/
The remainder are on other charging networks (EA, EV Go, Chargepoint, etc) that can be used by anyone. But that means that a random EV owner has thousands of alternative options, often in similar locations to Tesla's network. It's not as if each OEM has to spend billions on it's own proprietary charging network the way that Tesla has. Because the other networks aren't proprietary, you can add them all up. Consumers will have a choice in most cases between Superchargers or other networks. If it's more expensive to use the superchargers than another option, then most consumers will just get the cheapest juice available to them. It's not like there are different qualities of electricity and Tesla's electrons are better for an EV than EA's. It's just going to come down to price and convenience. Tesla's larger network currently has the convenience advantage in most places, but as more competing chargers are brought online, that convenience advantage erodes. I've attached maps of Tesla's North American fast chargers and Non-Tesla fast chargers. There's more overlap than differences.
This article states there are roughly 69,000 public (non-Tesla) charging connections in the US. Of those, only 16% or 11,040, are Level 3, which they define as being able to charge an EV to 75% in 30 minutes. By comparison, Tesla has over 25,000 Level 3 connections capable of providing 80% charge in 20 minutes. Sorry, but even combining all the other public networks, with no coordination on geographic coverage, slower charging rates, fewer locations, separate apps, and mismatched charging ports, it comes no where close to competing with Tesla’s supercharging network.
https://www.myev.com/research/comparisons/comparing-public-electric-vehicle-charging-networks
My last post on this topic as I don’t think we’ll get to a consensus here.
For Tesla’s pilot program in Norway non-Tesla users can either pay an increased rate for the juice they use OR pay a monthly subscription fee to pay the same rate for the juice as Tesla owners.
The title of the Electrify America article seems to be at odds with the content. Per the article you linked, Tesla had 20,000 fast chargers (10,000 in America) as of December 2020 and EA had 2,200. That’s a huge difference if you're planning a road trip.
I could be wrong, but I don’t really seeing the OEMs going in together to create a competing network. That’s a level of coordination and cost sharing that would be difficult to pull off. It’s why each cellular carrier has their own network of overlapping cell towers instead of going in together. Direct competitors rarely cooperate on this level of undertaking.
EA or legacy OEMs might get there eventually, but it’ll take years. It’s not like Tesla is standing still. They are rapidly adding territory and stations. Tesla has added over 5,000 Level 3 stalls to their charging network so far in 2021, to bring the total to over 25,000. In the article you cited, EVGo and GM announced plans to build 2700 chargers over the next 5 years. Tesla will install twice that capacity in 2021.
I think it makes a lot of sense for Tesla to open their network up to others. It cannot hurt them, and any revenue it generates is extremely high margin. I'm just not convinced that it's going to be some game changing move that secures Tesla's dominance, even as more and more competent EVs hit the market.
Tesla currently has about 57% of the fast chargers in the US per the most recent data that I can find:
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/11/us-charging-infrastructure-is-outpacing-forecasts-study-finds/
The remainder are on other charging networks (EA, EV Go, Chargepoint, etc) that can be used by anyone. But that means that a random EV owner has thousands of alternative options, often in similar locations to Tesla's network. It's not as if each OEM has to spend billions on it's own proprietary charging network the way that Tesla has. Because the other networks aren't proprietary, you can add them all up. Consumers will have a choice in most cases between Superchargers or other networks. If it's more expensive to use the superchargers than another option, then most consumers will just get the cheapest juice available to them. It's not like there are different qualities of electricity and Tesla's electrons are better for an EV than EA's. It's just going to come down to price and convenience. Tesla's larger network currently has the convenience advantage in most places, but as more competing chargers are brought online, that convenience advantage erodes. I've attached maps of Tesla's North American fast chargers and Non-Tesla fast chargers. There's more overlap than differences.
The definition of “fast charger” used in this article is deceiving. Only 10% of what they are calling non-Tesla “fast chargers” are actually capable of charging at the rate of a Tesla Level 3 supercharger. Per the pie chart in the article, approximately 10% of non-Tesla chargers can charge at 300 kW or better. All Tesla superchargers charge at 300 kW or better. This is obviously a huge difference in charging time and makes Tesla’s network far superior in both number of stalls and charging time.
Tesla launches new solar roof tiles with more power, higher efficiency
https://outline.com/Tg4HKG
New version is 22% more efficient (i.e., 22% more power from same size tile).
Constantly accelerating the pace of innovation. Hard for the competition to catch up to a moving target.
While this is nice and I'm glad they are improving it - their real problem with solar roof has been volume and execution, not solar efficiency.
No disagreement from me on that count. I still think solar roof is a winner, but it's had a hard time getting out the gates.
Tesla currently has about 57% of the fast chargers in the US per the most recent data that I can find:
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/11/us-charging-infrastructure-is-outpacing-forecasts-study-finds/
Tesla launches new solar roof tiles with more power, higher efficiency
https://outline.com/Tg4HKG
New version is 22% more efficient (i.e., 22% more power from same size tile).
Constantly accelerating the pace of innovation. Hard for the competition to catch up to a moving target.
While this is nice and I'm glad they are improving it - their real problem with solar roof has been volume and execution, not solar efficiency.
No disagreement from me on that count. I still think solar roof is a winner, but it's had a hard time getting out the gates.
As a side note, solar on home roofs is by far the most expensive form of PV solar power... The only reason it is still scaling is because of subsidies (not a bad thing at all). With install costs, economies of scale, proper panel orientation, etc. I think we will see the majority of solar coming from dedicated utility-scale farms in the coming decades. I wouldn't be surprised if rooftop solar under performs in relation to solar farms because of this, especially in climates where orientation efficiency is a bigger deal (midwest, etc.). As things progress, I suspect that most "net zero" folks will be buying solar from the grid at a lower price than installing it on their roof. I know I'm coming across as a bit argumentative here, I just want to point it out. From the energy industry side of things, the excitement about residential PV solar is a bit misplaced in my opinion.
Of course, this all highly depends on legislation and utility net metering programs. Rooftop solar is here to stay for sure, but it is darn expensive if you're trying to maximize your efficiency and stay green.
pdf link: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/78882.pdf
Residential solar costs $2.71 per W, Utility is $1.01.
It will vary by consumer as to what is preferred. What the utility supply model doesn't get on is self-sufficiency and control. Even if your supply can't power everything you want, if it can keep your fridge going and your house above 40 degrees and let you boil water during a power outage, some people will be willing to take on additional costs for that. Thinking about what happened in texas, people dying because of a power outage.
Tesla launches new solar roof tiles with more power, higher efficiency
https://outline.com/Tg4HKG
New version is 22% more efficient (i.e., 22% more power from same size tile).
Constantly accelerating the pace of innovation. Hard for the competition to catch up to a moving target.
While this is nice and I'm glad they are improving it - their real problem with solar roof has been volume and execution, not solar efficiency.
No disagreement from me on that count. I still think solar roof is a winner, but it's had a hard time getting out the gates.
As a side note, solar on home roofs is by far the most expensive form of PV solar power... The only reason it is still scaling is because of subsidies (not a bad thing at all). With install costs, economies of scale, proper panel orientation, etc. I think we will see the majority of solar coming from dedicated utility-scale farms in the coming decades. I wouldn't be surprised if rooftop solar under performs in relation to solar farms because of this, especially in climates where orientation efficiency is a bigger deal (midwest, etc.). As things progress, I suspect that most "net zero" folks will be buying solar from the grid at a lower price than installing it on their roof. I know I'm coming across as a bit argumentative here, I just want to point it out. From the energy industry side of things, the excitement about residential PV solar is a bit misplaced in my opinion.
Of course, this all highly depends on legislation and utility net metering programs. Rooftop solar is here to stay for sure, but it is darn expensive if you're trying to maximize your efficiency and stay green.
pdf link: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/78882.pdf
Residential solar costs $2.71 per W, Utility is $1.01.
It will vary by consumer as to what is preferred. What the utility supply model doesn't get on is self-sufficiency and control. Even if your supply can't power everything you want, if it can keep your fridge going and your house above 40 degrees and let you boil water during a power outage, some people will be willing to take on additional costs for that. Thinking about what happened in texas, people dying because of a power outage.
That is only a small portion of PV sales, though. By far the majority is grid connect without battery backup or ability to run disconnected from the grid. Most people are using it for price arbitrage, or because they are tech/environmental enthusiasts. A generator is way more cost effective in the case of a power outage (and the relative carbon emissions from backup power are small enough that it's really not a concern to all but the most stringent environmentalists). I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the vast majority of Texans worried about personal resilience in the next grid event are buying a generator and not a solar system with battery backup.
Maybe, to date. The world is rapidly changing, the texas situation scared the shit out of me. We get -20 degree weather sometimes, and I tried to imagine us without power and how long we'd last. Not long. and we have a lot of pets. What would we do?
We have gas heat, but it doesn't work without the electric component. We just need a drop of electricity to run the boiler. I'm definitely looking into tesla roof and batteries for peace of mind on this.
Maybe, to date. The world is rapidly changing, the texas situation scared the shit out of me. We get -20 degree weather sometimes, and I tried to imagine us without power and how long we'd last. Not long. and we have a lot of pets. What would we do?
We have gas heat, but it doesn't work without the electric component. We just need a drop of electricity to run the boiler. I'm definitely looking into tesla roof and batteries for peace of mind on this.
Maybe, to date. The world is rapidly changing, the texas situation scared the shit out of me. We get -20 degree weather sometimes, and I tried to imagine us without power and how long we'd last. Not long. and we have a lot of pets. What would we do?
We have gas heat, but it doesn't work without the electric component. We just need a drop of electricity to run the boiler. I'm definitely looking into tesla roof and batteries for peace of mind on this.
A small gasoline generator is a few hundred bucks and would keep your heat on and supply electricity for other needs as well.
If you're willing to do something more permanent and integrated (and clearly you are if you're considering solar/battery backup) then a natural gas back up generator can supply all the electricity you'd need for as long as you need it with no worries about running out of power. Size it to run just a few essentials, or your entire house. They're also likely to have a much longer lifespan than solar panels/batteries and won't lose capacity over time. Spend less than $10k once, and be good for 30+ years.
I'm definitely looking into tesla roof and batteries for peace of mind on this.
All true, but missing is the fact that a solar/battery installation while more expensive upfront does pay itself off over time due to net metering and energy arbitrage. So, at the 10-12 year mark the solar PV system will have paid for itself. Not true for the gas generator.PV and solar will likely also increase your home’s value more than a backup generator for the same reason. Not saying one is clearly better, but reduced energy bills need to be factored.
Maybe, to date. The world is rapidly changing, the texas situation scared the shit out of me. We get -20 degree weather sometimes, and I tried to imagine us without power and how long we'd last. Not long. and we have a lot of pets. What would we do?
We have gas heat, but it doesn't work without the electric component. We just need a drop of electricity to run the boiler. I'm definitely looking into tesla roof and batteries for peace of mind on this.
Yes to date. Did you read the rest of my comment? Lithium won't be cheap enough for a grid scale solution to backup power. Tesla is literally the most expensive solar panel option you can buy. I've installed solar panels in several applications (I have 3kW on my roof right now). I've also installed them in off grid situations. Tesla roof tiles are cool. But if you value your money you won't get them.
This is kind of the thing that is rough with the "Tesla or Die" club... there's no amount of moderate criticism or skepticism that is deemed reasonable. How many people who have driven up the price of the stock understand this? I don't know... I for sure am not an expert on the automotive industry.
I work in the energy industry. How the grid works and how most people imagine the grids works is often a huge chasm that is hard to converse with... it's difficult to tell what most people know and hard to cater the conversation in a way where folks can share well. I have had far more conversations with people who see a powerwall and think that it's just a matter of a few years of scaling and price and our grid is ready for renewables. And that can't be further from the truth... which makes me question most of the rest of the popular evaluation of Tesla. I'm not saying that they don't make a good product (solar, vehicle or otherwise). I'm saying, from the glimpses of the market that I've seen, it doesn't add up to me. I could be wrong, am suspicious when there are sentiments that everything that Tesla does has some underlying genius that can't be evaluated.
All true, but missing is the fact that a solar/battery installation while more expensive upfront does pay itself off over time due to net metering and energy arbitrage. So, at the 10-12 year mark the solar PV system will have paid for itself. Not true for the gas generator.PV and solar will likely also increase your home’s value more than a backup generator for the same reason. Not saying one is clearly better, but reduced energy bills need to be factored.
Solar will. A whole house lithium backup battery system will NOT pay for itself with arbitrage at this point unless you are in a specific subsidy rich AND net-metering friendly part of the country. If it did, there would be utility scale backup batteries, but alas, we only have fossil fuel plants for that for the foreseeable future (and some hydro).
Edit: (sorry to be combative again). I am partially expressing my own frustration at how this stuff plays out. It goes back to the MMM blog a bit- Tesla is a bit of a "consume ourselves out of the problem", and I am off put by their marketing. I'm designing a house and really wanted Tesla solar, even got a representative and such to price it out and it just is all smoke an mirrors. The whole program seems designed for people who just want to buy tech, but don't care how any of it works. They're paying for their sins so to speak without making any sacrifices. You want to increase resiliency and lessen your environmental impact? Maybe downsize your house or learn to live with a lower temperature, etc.
Just me venting but these threads bring it out of me, lol
I'm sure there are many people who won't go to a tesla roof, but I think there are going to be a lot that do. The seemless integration with the powerwalls,the beautiful look of the roof, the cleanliness of the roof grey water, the safety and convenience of the power backup, I can hardly wait to get mine. There isn't even a question of another product to compare it too.
It seems like you have a rationale on why the tesla roof isn't going to be a huge success but I don't think you're factoring in consumer sentiments.
I'm sure there are many people who won't go to a tesla roof, but I think there are going to be a lot that do. The seemless integration with the powerwalls,the beautiful look of the roof, the cleanliness of the roof grey water, the safety and convenience of the power backup, I can hardly wait to get mine. There isn't even a question of another product to compare it too.
YOU CAN DO ALL OF THOSE THINGS WITH A NORMAL METAL ROOF AND SOLAR PANELS! I'm yelling at the sky, not at you! Imagine trying to shake some sense into a family member, not throwing knives.
How the hell am I not communicating this? There are other options that are better in EVERY METRIC except aesthetics. Every one! Roofers install the roof, electricians install the panels... why is that not an option?
So, it's like - here is something cheaper and more efficient than what you want. It's ugly, takes coordination, and might be messsy or smelly, but it's cheaper than what you want. Take it!!!
Then - so for about 80-90% of the year, I have full sun on the south side of my roof, but in the hottest time of the year, the sun is on the north side of my roof. So that would be a problem under your scenario. I also have a small amount of roof that faces east and west. the roof has a very steep pitch, which I think will be excellent for solar colelction most of the years and I like having solar collection going on over all four of those areas.
Maybe, to date. The world is rapidly changing, the texas situation scared the shit out of me. We get -20 degree weather sometimes, and I tried to imagine us without power and how long we'd last. Not long. and we have a lot of pets. What would we do?
We have gas heat, but it doesn't work without the electric component. We just need a drop of electricity to run the boiler. I'm definitely looking into tesla roof and batteries for peace of mind on this.
A small gasoline generator is a few hundred bucks and would keep your heat on and supply electricity for other needs as well.
If you're willing to do something more permanent and integrated (and clearly you are if you're considering solar/battery backup) then a natural gas back up generator can supply all the electricity you'd need for as long as you need it with no worries about running out of power. Size it to run just a few essentials, or your entire house. They're also likely to have a much longer lifespan than solar panels/batteries and won't lose capacity over time. Spend less than $10k once, and be good for 30+ years.
All true, but missing is the fact that a solar/battery installation while more expensive upfront does pay itself off over time due to net metering and energy arbitrage. So, at the 10-12 year mark the solar PV system will have paid for itself. Not true for the gas generator.PV and solar will likely also increase your home’s value more than a backup generator for the same reason. Not saying one is clearly better, but reduced energy bills need to be factored.
I think it's worth taking note of the approach Tesla took in introducing EV's to the market. Start at the high end, use these profits to subsidize the R&D and capital expenditures necessary to work down market. In this context, Tesla solar roof is a best an early model Model S. It is a product that is a work in progress. Available to a few, relatively wealthy consumers, who also happen to be tastemakers. I would expect to see solar roofs move down market over the next decade, just as EVs have this past decade.
or are we going with a generator, which I don't want because they seem messy, smelly and dangerous. how big are they? where would I put them? how do I turn them on? All things I don't want to know about.
I say no thanks. I want something seamless. I need something seamless. My opinoin is that the tesla roof is my best option for converting to solar and having a back up in place for power outages.
I think it's worth taking note of the approach Tesla took in introducing EV's to the market. Start at the high end, use these profits to subsidize the R&D and capital expenditures necessary to work down market. In this context, Tesla solar roof is a best an early model Model S. It is a product that is a work in progress. Available to a few, relatively wealthy consumers, who also happen to be tastemakers. I would expect to see solar roofs move down market over the next decade, just as EVs have this past decade.
I think this is what most people expect... but what I'm suggesting here is that the Model S approach worked really well because there were no other examples of EVs on the market in general.
Tesla solar roof is like a Fiskar Karma- it's just an expensive alternative to a system that already works. There are already solar panels on roofs. And there are already battery backups. Tesla roofs aren't adding anything except aesthetics (and that they force you to buy one if you want a Powerwall, a much superior product IMO).
I think it will expand and trickle down because it's dumb to have one layer on your roof to shed water and another to generate electricity when one layer could do both. The increasingly short replacement cycle of shingles (at least here in FL) to comply with insurance companies' wishes will make the maintenance issues of regular solar panels worse, and a longer lasting combined option more attractive.
I think it will expand and trickle down because it's dumb to have one layer on your roof to shed water and another to generate electricity when one layer could do both. The increasingly short replacement cycle of shingles (at least here in FL) to comply with insurance companies' wishes will make the maintenance issues of regular solar panels worse, and a longer lasting combined option more attractive.
What's the replacement cycle on metal roofs?
or are we going with a generator, which I don't want because they seem messy, smelly and dangerous. how big are they? where would I put them? how do I turn them on? All things I don't want to know about.
I say no thanks. I want something seamless. I need something seamless. My opinoin is that the tesla roof is my best option for converting to solar and having a back up in place for power outages.
A "whole house" generator sits outside your home, somewhere in between your home's gas meter and your electrical panel. It's a permanent part of your home at that point. Size varies depending on your needs, but they're usually a box not much larger than a heat pump like this:
(https://generatoradvisor.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/standby-generator-1024x577.jpg)
They have a transfer switch that automatically detects power outages and instantly turns the generator on until the power is restored. You don't have to refuel it, start it, or anything else. It's fully integrated. I've got a home that's large by MMM standards with lots of electrical needs (2 HVAC systems, 3 garage doors, charging needs for PHEV, etc) and sizing calculators put an entry level system for my needs at about $4500 before install to never experience a power outage again.
I don't know Tesla's solar scale. I ordered the standard panels and a powerwall. 12.25kw system with a powerwall is around $30,000 before any tax credits $2/W + powerwall. For me, that's more than enough power and piece of mind. I'm in the woods and don't mind how solar looks. It's a just a roof to me. I'm not sure what the credits will end up being with potential legislation. Currently the net outlay is about 10 years of electricity cost at 10c/kwh with tax credits under today's law.
Tesla's pricing is really good. A similar system from local solar installers in my state is upwards of $50,000.
I think it's worth taking note of the approach Tesla took in introducing EV's to the market. Start at the high end, use these profits to subsidize the R&D and capital expenditures necessary to work down market. In this context, Tesla solar roof is a best an early model Model S. It is a product that is a work in progress. Available to a few, relatively wealthy consumers, who also happen to be tastemakers. I would expect to see solar roofs move down market over the next decade, just as EVs have this past decade.
I think this is what most people expect... but what I'm suggesting here is that the Model S approach worked really well because there were no other examples of EVs on the market in general.
Tesla solar roof is like a Fiskar Karma- it's just an expensive alternative to a system that already works. There are already solar panels on roofs. And there are already battery backups. Tesla roofs aren't adding anything except aesthetics (and that they force you to buy one if you want a Powerwall, a much superior product IMO).
Edit: (lots of these for me, lol) and much like solar roadways, their roof panels will never be as efficient as straight solar panels due to coloring and texture. Again, this is less of an issue than cost, but I did want to note it. They are limited by physics in this aspect (in the same vein, lithium battery capacity is showing strong signs of reaching maximum density).
I think there is still a market for Tesla-Roof like systems, but the whole idea isn't very scalable. If solar generation is indeed the best way to make energy, then we are going to see more solar farms being built with proper panel angles (or solar tracking) and more easily cleaned. Large scale solar systems producing energy will make utilities less incentivized to have strong net metering payments because they will already be getting energy generation when the sun is out. Right now it is a small population of houses but that power will be less valuable for grid management. It may be beneficial to only have a Powerwall for price arbitrage and let the utilities generate the solar plant (this I think is optimal, but I'm not going to try to crystal ball this one). These are the things that I think will limit the ability for Tesla to scale the same way they are doing with cars. The hurdles on the grid are not the same as the hurdles in automotive.
I have no doubt that Tesla has great minds on this. I do have some doubt that investors do.
I accept that you can (and likely will :) take what I’ve written above and tell me half a dozen ways it won’t or can’t work. My answer would simply be that Elon thinks it can be done and I wouldn’t bet against a guy who figured out how to reuse rockets by landing them vertically. NASA, Boeing, and Lockheed all scoffed at the notion of a private company doing manned space flights, resupply missions to the space station, and the idea of reusable rockets. Elon ate their lunch and did it all at a fraction of previous costs. In comparison, I don’t see how utility scale renewable plus storage is some unsolvable conundrum.
Tesla is a great investment. They are innovating rapidly, have bitcoin on the balance sheet, are years and years ahead of competition, and more importantly, have a cult like following much like Apple in the past. Every time I sell some Tesla to rebalance, I die inside a little bit.
What's the purpose of having Bitcoin on the balance sheet? That's actually one of the least appealing things about the company, particularly since they don't seem serious about selling their cars for it.
I say this as a Bitcoin booster. If I want to own Bitcoin, I'll buy it. If I want to own a growing business, let me buy that.
Years and years ahead of competition
Also, I started a journal--motivated by another thread--in which I give the play-by-play of my Bitcoin trading:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/tall-texan's-crypto-trading-journal/ (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/tall-texan's-crypto-trading-journal/)
My goals are to make money, learn about the tech, and challenge myself to hold to a disciplined approach to trading a volatile asset.
Lengthy podcast discussion of Tesla’s position relative to other auto makers and valuation. Well worth a watch if considering or holding Tesla stock.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln2czFNI6mk
Lengthy podcast discussion of Tesla’s position relative to other auto makers and valuation. Well worth a watch if considering or holding Tesla stock.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln2czFNI6mk
90 minutes long? Is there a clifts note version?
Lengthy podcast discussion of Tesla’s position relative to other auto makers and valuation. Well worth a watch if considering or holding Tesla stock.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln2czFNI6mk
If you want the information (in this case, a YouTuber's opinion), you have to watch 20 minutes of ads. It's not like there's a 10k form or something.
On the other hand, did hear that South Korean couples are gifting tesla stocks.
That seems really odd to me!
Made me think of tulips.....
On the other hand, did hear that South Korean couples are gifting tesla stocks.
That seems really odd to me!
Made me think of tulips.....
Crazy as it may be, damn that's some good brand awareness for a company that doesn't advertise.
@ColoradoTribe: I agree EVs will do great things. However, Tesla has to still be around to benefit from that.
They have built amazing cars. They have big dreams for the future. I personally want them to be successful, I want to be able to buy a used Model 3 in the future. I want to be able to have solar with a battery back up. The problem is that investors have been pumping up the stock based on the dreams of what Tesla 'could be,' and not what it is today. Expectations have been set unrealistically high and Tesla has borrowed money based on those expectations.QuoteFive years from now it will not matter whether it took them an extra six months to get production up to 5k/week.
Actually, in reality, it might matter a lot. It could be the difference between Tesla producing 1 million cars/year in 5 years VS bankruptcy within 12 months. Tesla will need more funding soon. Bond investors don't live in the clouds, they don't trade based on dreams of what could be in 5-10 years. Bond investors like results, and they like those results printed on boring balance sheets and cash flow statements. If Tesla doesn't increase Model 3 production, FAST, like really FAST, then the next time they issue bonds they might not find willing investors. Tesla isn't Apple or Google, or even Ford. Those companies have cash on hand. They can handle shocks. They can recover from mistakes. Tesla is running on borrowed money and broken promises. Many great companies have fallen prey to big dreams... and too much leverage.
People have been predicting Tesla's imminent bankruptcy and demise for as long as I've been following the company/stock. I bought more common shares today and will sleep well tonight. Those aligned against this company and its disruption (not you personally) know that once the model 3 ramp is complete that Tesla becomes profitable and this narrative goes away, so they're milking it one last time. I see indication that the model 3 ramp has picked up to 1500 - 2000/week the past week or two. They'll likely hit 2500/week in the first of Q2, in plenty of time to satisfy bond investors. There was a chance of Tesla failing in the early going, the chances of such a failure now are very low IMO. We'll know for sure in a few years.
Sure people have predicted bankruptcy before but past performance cannot be extrapolated forward. This is clearly make-or-break time for Tesla. In the past investors have bailed them out, by giving them more cash. However, given that this is what the company has been shooting for, the high-volume, mass market EV, if they can be successful in ramping up production (and have enough demand) then they should be okay. If not, they may go bankrupt in the next 1-12 months.
However, even if they are successful at their ramp up, the main remaining potential worry that I see is that they will likely not be a top-5 automaker and thus cannot justify their market cap. Once they stop being a company valued on future potential and our desire to see a sustainable transportation future but on actual sales and revenue and profits and reliability and all the other boring stuff that most blue chip companies are judged on, then I see it as unlikely that their sales will be similar to the big car makers. Remember all the other guys are bringing out EVs and PHEVs too and that car buyers are notoriously picky about their cars in terms of brand, design, model, style, etc. . . Teslas, despite their cool factor, are not for everyone. Just like Priuses or F-150s or Camrys or Accords aren't.
I think you way over simplify how easy it will be for the ICE manufacturers to turn to EVs, while maintaining their ICE production. Its hard to serve tow master. I would also point out that Tesla's biggest advantage is not their cars per se, its there ability to produce enough batteries for mass produce EVs. Unless I missed it, Ford, and GM do not have a gigafactory to mass produce the Lithium Ion batteries.
As far as valuation, the stock price will almost always stay ahead of the valuation for disruptive growth companies. THat's okay with a buy and hold strategy. Tesla is no longer a "car company", it's an energy and transportation company. As I mentioned above, Tesla is tackling grid scale battery backup/stabiliztion, residential battery storage, commercial trucking, solar roofing shingles, manufacturing automation, self-driving cars, and more. Will Tesla hit a home run with all these, no, but chances are they'll succeed on multiple fronts.
I suggest, instead of going back and forth and likely not change either of our opinions, let's make some predictions and see what happens. Here are my predictions for 2018. Tesla will finish the year:
With at least one, possibly two profitable quarters
Sell over 250,000 vehicles (S, X, M3), which would be 150% YOY growth
Stock price over $400
PS - I also predict the M3 will be named Popular Mechanics 2018 Car of the Year :)
https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/g19605464/best-cars-2018/ (https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/g19605464/best-cars-2018/)
Sure, sounds like fun.
I predict Tesla won't sell 100,000 model 3's this year (and I think that will be very impressive and a win for them if they get close to 100k ). Remember that they were shooting for 500k this year.
I think TSLA won't end the year over $300, and there's a decent chance it'll go below $200 this year.
Remember there were only 200k EVs and PHEVs sold in the US in 2017. It's not as if there was a supply issue for these vehicles. It takes time for consumers to become aware of and wrap their minds around the changes that driving a plug-in car entails. It's not a switch that happens overnight.
Buying TSLA shares is a great idea. But only if your goal is to learn what it feels like to have a stock you own go to zero in a bankruptcy. It's the single best short in a market full of overvalued companies. The unsecured bondholders will also lose most of their money (and bondholders have to get 100% of their money back before shareholders get a penny). I think the odds of bankruptcy this year are over 10% and over 70% by the end of next year. They will lose about $1 billion this quarter, and the same next quarter, and will lose at least $500 million per quarter even if they eventually can start making 5000 Model 3's per week (which I don't think they can do until next year, even if they are still in business).
The stock price got so out of control because of incredibly naive people who have no idea what they are doing with investing, but did listen to the media worship and maniacal proclamations from Musk (who routinely intentionally misleads investors in order to separate them from their cash). People are going to lose enormous amounts of money as reality hits. Don't be one of those people.
Is the proof in the pudding yet?
Additionally, TSLA's good fortune was unique to it, as investors in Lordstown, Nikola, and Canoo discovered. It would be inconsistent to say "see, told ya" about TSLA, while not being invested in these firms and the numerous Chinese EV makers.
People (not you, just "people") keep acting like Tesla is a house of cards or a scam and yet the cars keep coming and the growth keeps happeningMaybe I missed part of this conversation, but I don't see anyone using those terms.
The massive difference between Lordstown, Canoo, and Nikola vs Tesla in 2017 was that Tesla had actually made a product and shipped large numbers of them to very pleased owners. The other three had not.Lucid Motors has more than doubled since their IPO (by SPAC), so in my mind they belong in that list while Nikola does not.
Is the proof in the pudding yet?
Yes, a TSLA investment in 2017 would have been putting your money in exactly the right place at exactly the right time. As it turns out, 2017 was right on the cusp of a massive boom in tech stocks with simple narratives, and TSLA happened to be on the verge of solving both their main manufacturing problems and their short term financing problems.
No, I'm not convinced that we've learned anything about a decision-making formula would work reliably in the future. The formula that would have led people to buy TSLA in 2017 was to buy nearly broke potential disruptors in a capital-intensive, highly-competitive industry making products that were more expensive and inconvenient than their competitors, while counting on the company to maintain a triple-digit PE ratio even after having reached sustainability. This specific strategy would work at some points in the market cycle, but not others. Additionally, TSLA's good fortune was unique to it, as investors in Lordstown, Nikola, and Canoo discovered. It would be inconsistent to say "see, told ya" about TSLA, while not being invested in these firms and the numerous Chinese EV makers.
Is the proof in the pudding yet?
Yes, a TSLA investment in 2017 would have been putting your money in exactly the right place at exactly the right time. As it turns out, 2017 was right on the cusp of a massive boom in tech stocks with simple narratives, and TSLA happened to be on the verge of solving both their main manufacturing problems and their short term financing problems.
No, I'm not convinced that we've learned anything about a decision-making formula would work reliably in the future. The formula that would have led people to buy TSLA in 2017 was to buy nearly broke potential disruptors in a capital-intensive, highly-competitive industry making products that were more expensive and inconvenient than their competitors, while counting on the company to maintain a triple-digit PE ratio even after having reached sustainability. This specific strategy would work at some points in the market cycle, but not others. Additionally, TSLA's good fortune was unique to it, as investors in Lordstown, Nikola, and Canoo discovered. It would be inconsistent to say "see, told ya" about TSLA, while not being invested in these firms and the numerous Chinese EV makers.
How many of the above points could be repurposed to justify NIO? We can't test drive the newly launched, 644hp, 419 mile range ET7 yet, but chances are anything Musk said in favor of electric cars applies to them. Negative sentiment is probably overblown (particularly since TSLA, by comparison, is at least 1/3rd a Chinese company now) and they're solving a problem of huge scale in the world's most populous country. At 4% of TSLA's market cap, maybe the financials do matter.Is the proof in the pudding yet?
Yes, a TSLA investment in 2017 would have been putting your money in exactly the right place at exactly the right time. As it turns out, 2017 was right on the cusp of a massive boom in tech stocks with simple narratives, and TSLA happened to be on the verge of solving both their main manufacturing problems and their short term financing problems.
No, I'm not convinced that we've learned anything about a decision-making formula would work reliably in the future. The formula that would have led people to buy TSLA in 2017 was to buy nearly broke potential disruptors in a capital-intensive, highly-competitive industry making products that were more expensive and inconvenient than their competitors, while counting on the company to maintain a triple-digit PE ratio even after having reached sustainability. This specific strategy would work at some points in the market cycle, but not others. Additionally, TSLA's good fortune was unique to it, as investors in Lordstown, Nikola, and Canoo discovered. It would be inconsistent to say "see, told ya" about TSLA, while not being invested in these firms and the numerous Chinese EV makers.
So I got in in July 2019. Some of the thoughts/experiences that drove this initial investment:
- Climate change is an existential threat and will out of necessity require a big money solution. Tesla seems to be on the right track to make it happen.
- I took my first test drive in a Model S in 2016. This was a bit of an eye opener and caused me to start watching what was going on with Tesla
- I've always been a space nerd, so I was aware of what was going on with SpaceX. These guys were landing rockets? No one expected that to work. Something is going on here... Watch this video if you haven't yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FZIwabctw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FZIwabctw)
- I Turo'd a Model 3 in summer of 2019 for a day. This knocked my socks off. A silent, fast, car that drives itself. Woah. I had no idea that these things were this good.
- I saw the second ever Starlink train in May 2019. These guys are making whole new astronomical sights. HOLY COW. They can do what they say that can, even if it sounds impossible.
- Press coverage of Tesla was very negative in 2018-2019. Lot's of angst over the Model 3 ramp. It seemed contrived as the ramp was happening, just a bit slower than expected. This reeked of short-term thought, which represents an opportunity for long term investment.
- I listened to Musk speak directly, not filtered through the media. (Why would you trust a communications major to tell you about technology!?!?) As an engineer, everything he said made perfect sense. His logic was very, very clear.
To sum this up, my decision making had nothing to do with finance (These indicators seem to be lagging, not leading). It had everything to do with rate of technological improvement and the size of the problem being solved for. I believe this formula still applies today. See previous posts about FSD if you're curious.
Absolutely! A lot of these things may apply to NIO, however I don't really know for sure as there is no car available to test.How many of the above points could be repurposed to justify NIO? We can't test drive the newly launched, 644hp, 419 mile range ET7 yet, but chances are anything Musk said in favor of electric cars applies to them. Negative sentiment is probably overblown (particularly since TSLA, by comparison, is at least 1/3rd a Chinese company now) and they're solving a problem of huge scale in the world's most populous country. At 4% of TSLA's market cap, maybe the financials do matter.Is the proof in the pudding yet?
Yes, a TSLA investment in 2017 would have been putting your money in exactly the right place at exactly the right time. As it turns out, 2017 was right on the cusp of a massive boom in tech stocks with simple narratives, and TSLA happened to be on the verge of solving both their main manufacturing problems and their short term financing problems.
No, I'm not convinced that we've learned anything about a decision-making formula would work reliably in the future. The formula that would have led people to buy TSLA in 2017 was to buy nearly broke potential disruptors in a capital-intensive, highly-competitive industry making products that were more expensive and inconvenient than their competitors, while counting on the company to maintain a triple-digit PE ratio even after having reached sustainability. This specific strategy would work at some points in the market cycle, but not others. Additionally, TSLA's good fortune was unique to it, as investors in Lordstown, Nikola, and Canoo discovered. It would be inconsistent to say "see, told ya" about TSLA, while not being invested in these firms and the numerous Chinese EV makers.
So I got in in July 2019. Some of the thoughts/experiences that drove this initial investment:
- Climate change is an existential threat and will out of necessity require a big money solution. Tesla seems to be on the right track to make it happen.
- I took my first test drive in a Model S in 2016. This was a bit of an eye opener and caused me to start watching what was going on with Tesla
- I've always been a space nerd, so I was aware of what was going on with SpaceX. These guys were landing rockets? No one expected that to work. Something is going on here... Watch this video if you haven't yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FZIwabctw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FZIwabctw)
- I Turo'd a Model 3 in summer of 2019 for a day. This knocked my socks off. A silent, fast, car that drives itself. Woah. I had no idea that these things were this good.
- I saw the second ever Starlink train in May 2019. These guys are making whole new astronomical sights. HOLY COW. They can do what they say that can, even if it sounds impossible.
- Press coverage of Tesla was very negative in 2018-2019. Lot's of angst over the Model 3 ramp. It seemed contrived as the ramp was happening, just a bit slower than expected. This reeked of short-term thought, which represents an opportunity for long term investment.
- I listened to Musk speak directly, not filtered through the media. (Why would you trust a communications major to tell you about technology!?!?) As an engineer, everything he said made perfect sense. His logic was very, very clear.
To sum this up, my decision making had nothing to do with finance (These indicators seem to be lagging, not leading). It had everything to do with rate of technological improvement and the size of the problem being solved for. I believe this formula still applies today. See previous posts about FSD if you're curious.
Is the proof in the pudding yet?
Yes, a TSLA investment in 2017 would have been putting your money in exactly the right place at exactly the right time. As it turns out, 2017 was right on the cusp of a massive boom in tech stocks with simple narratives, and TSLA happened to be on the verge of solving both their main manufacturing problems and their short term financing problems.
No, I'm not convinced that we've learned anything about a decision-making formula would work reliably in the future. The formula that would have led people to buy TSLA in 2017 was to buy nearly broke potential disruptors in a capital-intensive, highly-competitive industry making products that were more expensive and inconvenient than their competitors, while counting on the company to maintain a triple-digit PE ratio even after having reached sustainability. This specific strategy would work at some points in the market cycle, but not others. Additionally, TSLA's good fortune was unique to it, as investors in Lordstown, Nikola, and Canoo discovered. It would be inconsistent to say "see, told ya" about TSLA, while not being invested in these firms and the numerous Chinese EV makers.
How many of the above points could be repurposed to justify NIO? We can't test drive the newly launched, 644hp, 419 mile range ET7 yet, but chances are anything Musk said in favor of electric cars applies to them. Negative sentiment is probably overblown (particularly since TSLA, by comparison, is at least 1/3rd a Chinese company now) and they're solving a problem of huge scale in the world's most populous country. At 4% of TSLA's market cap, maybe the financials do matter.Is the proof in the pudding yet?
Yes, a TSLA investment in 2017 would have been putting your money in exactly the right place at exactly the right time. As it turns out, 2017 was right on the cusp of a massive boom in tech stocks with simple narratives, and TSLA happened to be on the verge of solving both their main manufacturing problems and their short term financing problems.
No, I'm not convinced that we've learned anything about a decision-making formula would work reliably in the future. The formula that would have led people to buy TSLA in 2017 was to buy nearly broke potential disruptors in a capital-intensive, highly-competitive industry making products that were more expensive and inconvenient than their competitors, while counting on the company to maintain a triple-digit PE ratio even after having reached sustainability. This specific strategy would work at some points in the market cycle, but not others. Additionally, TSLA's good fortune was unique to it, as investors in Lordstown, Nikola, and Canoo discovered. It would be inconsistent to say "see, told ya" about TSLA, while not being invested in these firms and the numerous Chinese EV makers.
So I got in in July 2019. Some of the thoughts/experiences that drove this initial investment:
- Climate change is an existential threat and will out of necessity require a big money solution. Tesla seems to be on the right track to make it happen.
- I took my first test drive in a Model S in 2016. This was a bit of an eye opener and caused me to start watching what was going on with Tesla
- I've always been a space nerd, so I was aware of what was going on with SpaceX. These guys were landing rockets? No one expected that to work. Something is going on here... Watch this video if you haven't yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FZIwabctw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FZIwabctw)
- I Turo'd a Model 3 in summer of 2019 for a day. This knocked my socks off. A silent, fast, car that drives itself. Woah. I had no idea that these things were this good.
- I saw the second ever Starlink train in May 2019. These guys are making whole new astronomical sights. HOLY COW. They can do what they say that can, even if it sounds impossible.
- Press coverage of Tesla was very negative in 2018-2019. Lot's of angst over the Model 3 ramp. It seemed contrived as the ramp was happening, just a bit slower than expected. This reeked of short-term thought, which represents an opportunity for long term investment.
- I listened to Musk speak directly, not filtered through the media. (Why would you trust a communications major to tell you about technology!?!?) As an engineer, everything he said made perfect sense. His logic was very, very clear.
To sum this up, my decision making had nothing to do with finance (These indicators seem to be lagging, not leading). It had everything to do with rate of technological improvement and the size of the problem being solved for. I believe this formula still applies today. See previous posts about FSD if you're curious.
I feel like that last bullet point (about Musk) also has to acknowledge his outrageous behavior on more than one occasion. Speaking about engineering is fine. The performance art on Twitter rubs me the wrong way.The key here is to go read the original comments in context. Most of the things that have been portrayed as outrageous behavior really aren't. Remember, this guy is on track to overturn some of the biggest industries on Earth. Trillions of dollars of fossil fuel value will evaporate in the next 20 years because of what is going on with Tesla/Clean energy revolution. Consider that the automobile industry spent $15 billion advertising last year (https://www.statista.com/statistics/243603/projected-online-ad-expenditure-of-the-us-automotive-industry/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/243603/projected-online-ad-expenditure-of-the-us-automotive-industry/)). This buys a lot of influence in the media.
And Tesla grew despite the legacy auto companies' dealer networks, gas station networks, parts distribution networks, financing networks, and economies of scale. The moral of the story is that things easily bought with money are no moat.How many of the above points could be repurposed to justify NIO? We can't test drive the newly launched, 644hp, 419 mile range ET7 yet, but chances are anything Musk said in favor of electric cars applies to them. Negative sentiment is probably overblown (particularly since TSLA, by comparison, is at least 1/3rd a Chinese company now) and they're solving a problem of huge scale in the world's most populous country. At 4% of TSLA's market cap, maybe the financials do matter.Is the proof in the pudding yet?
Yes, a TSLA investment in 2017 would have been putting your money in exactly the right place at exactly the right time. As it turns out, 2017 was right on the cusp of a massive boom in tech stocks with simple narratives, and TSLA happened to be on the verge of solving both their main manufacturing problems and their short term financing problems.
No, I'm not convinced that we've learned anything about a decision-making formula would work reliably in the future. The formula that would have led people to buy TSLA in 2017 was to buy nearly broke potential disruptors in a capital-intensive, highly-competitive industry making products that were more expensive and inconvenient than their competitors, while counting on the company to maintain a triple-digit PE ratio even after having reached sustainability. This specific strategy would work at some points in the market cycle, but not others. Additionally, TSLA's good fortune was unique to it, as investors in Lordstown, Nikola, and Canoo discovered. It would be inconsistent to say "see, told ya" about TSLA, while not being invested in these firms and the numerous Chinese EV makers.
So I got in in July 2019. Some of the thoughts/experiences that drove this initial investment:
- Climate change is an existential threat and will out of necessity require a big money solution. Tesla seems to be on the right track to make it happen.
- I took my first test drive in a Model S in 2016. This was a bit of an eye opener and caused me to start watching what was going on with Tesla
- I've always been a space nerd, so I was aware of what was going on with SpaceX. These guys were landing rockets? No one expected that to work. Something is going on here... Watch this video if you haven't yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FZIwabctw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FZIwabctw)
- I Turo'd a Model 3 in summer of 2019 for a day. This knocked my socks off. A silent, fast, car that drives itself. Woah. I had no idea that these things were this good.
- I saw the second ever Starlink train in May 2019. These guys are making whole new astronomical sights. HOLY COW. They can do what they say that can, even if it sounds impossible.
- Press coverage of Tesla was very negative in 2018-2019. Lot's of angst over the Model 3 ramp. It seemed contrived as the ramp was happening, just a bit slower than expected. This reeked of short-term thought, which represents an opportunity for long term investment.
- I listened to Musk speak directly, not filtered through the media. (Why would you trust a communications major to tell you about technology!?!?) As an engineer, everything he said made perfect sense. His logic was very, very clear.
To sum this up, my decision making had nothing to do with finance (These indicators seem to be lagging, not leading). It had everything to do with rate of technological improvement and the size of the problem being solved for. I believe this formula still applies today. See previous posts about FSD if you're curious.
Is relatively easy to create an EV prototype that can approximate the range and performance of a Tesla. What none of these companies have proven, outside on Chinese companies selling within China, is that they can produce in mass profitably. Tesla has achieved this and has margins 3X the industry average on each vehicle sold. These margins will only increase with further economies of scale. Tesla also has the supercharger network. Do Rivian or Polestar have a supercharging network? Do they own their own battery production? Did they lock in raw material contracts for their battery cells years in advance? How will they grow to Tesla scale if they are limited by battery supply? Tesla’s lead isn’t shrinking, if anything its growing.
And Tesla grew despite the legacy auto companies' dealer networks, gas station networks, parts distribution networks, financing networks, and economies of scale. The moral of the story is that things easily bought with money are no moat.How many of the above points could be repurposed to justify NIO? We can't test drive the newly launched, 644hp, 419 mile range ET7 yet, but chances are anything Musk said in favor of electric cars applies to them. Negative sentiment is probably overblown (particularly since TSLA, by comparison, is at least 1/3rd a Chinese company now) and they're solving a problem of huge scale in the world's most populous country. At 4% of TSLA's market cap, maybe the financials do matter.Is the proof in the pudding yet?
Yes, a TSLA investment in 2017 would have been putting your money in exactly the right place at exactly the right time. As it turns out, 2017 was right on the cusp of a massive boom in tech stocks with simple narratives, and TSLA happened to be on the verge of solving both their main manufacturing problems and their short term financing problems.
No, I'm not convinced that we've learned anything about a decision-making formula would work reliably in the future. The formula that would have led people to buy TSLA in 2017 was to buy nearly broke potential disruptors in a capital-intensive, highly-competitive industry making products that were more expensive and inconvenient than their competitors, while counting on the company to maintain a triple-digit PE ratio even after having reached sustainability. This specific strategy would work at some points in the market cycle, but not others. Additionally, TSLA's good fortune was unique to it, as investors in Lordstown, Nikola, and Canoo discovered. It would be inconsistent to say "see, told ya" about TSLA, while not being invested in these firms and the numerous Chinese EV makers.
So I got in in July 2019. Some of the thoughts/experiences that drove this initial investment:
- Climate change is an existential threat and will out of necessity require a big money solution. Tesla seems to be on the right track to make it happen.
- I took my first test drive in a Model S in 2016. This was a bit of an eye opener and caused me to start watching what was going on with Tesla
- I've always been a space nerd, so I was aware of what was going on with SpaceX. These guys were landing rockets? No one expected that to work. Something is going on here... Watch this video if you haven't yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FZIwabctw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FZIwabctw)
- I Turo'd a Model 3 in summer of 2019 for a day. This knocked my socks off. A silent, fast, car that drives itself. Woah. I had no idea that these things were this good.
- I saw the second ever Starlink train in May 2019. These guys are making whole new astronomical sights. HOLY COW. They can do what they say that can, even if it sounds impossible.
- Press coverage of Tesla was very negative in 2018-2019. Lot's of angst over the Model 3 ramp. It seemed contrived as the ramp was happening, just a bit slower than expected. This reeked of short-term thought, which represents an opportunity for long term investment.
- I listened to Musk speak directly, not filtered through the media. (Why would you trust a communications major to tell you about technology!?!?) As an engineer, everything he said made perfect sense. His logic was very, very clear.
To sum this up, my decision making had nothing to do with finance (These indicators seem to be lagging, not leading). It had everything to do with rate of technological improvement and the size of the problem being solved for. I believe this formula still applies today. See previous posts about FSD if you're curious.
Is relatively easy to create an EV prototype that can approximate the range and performance of a Tesla. What none of these companies have proven, outside on Chinese companies selling within China, is that they can produce in mass profitably. Tesla has achieved this and has margins 3X the industry average on each vehicle sold. These margins will only increase with further economies of scale. Tesla also has the supercharger network. Do Rivian or Polestar have a supercharging network? Do they own their own battery production? Did they lock in raw material contracts for their battery cells years in advance? How will they grow to Tesla scale if they are limited by battery supply? Tesla’s lead isn’t shrinking, if anything its growing.
What is the most likely thing to disrupt Tesla's model? The same thing that disrupted American car companies before - Asian manufacturing expertise, electronics expertise, and ability to scale. Despite promises about the Model 3, which ended up costing as much as a BMW, Tesla remains unable to produce an affordable EV outside the luxury car market after about two decades of work. The Chinese will accomplish that with their shorter supply lines and more competitive market for basic materials, batteries, chips, components, etc.
And Tesla grew despite the legacy auto companies' dealer networks, gas station networks, parts distribution networks, financing networks, and economies of scale. The moral of the story is that things easily bought with money are no moat.How many of the above points could be repurposed to justify NIO? We can't test drive the newly launched, 644hp, 419 mile range ET7 yet, but chances are anything Musk said in favor of electric cars applies to them. Negative sentiment is probably overblown (particularly since TSLA, by comparison, is at least 1/3rd a Chinese company now) and they're solving a problem of huge scale in the world's most populous country. At 4% of TSLA's market cap, maybe the financials do matter.Is the proof in the pudding yet?
Yes, a TSLA investment in 2017 would have been putting your money in exactly the right place at exactly the right time. As it turns out, 2017 was right on the cusp of a massive boom in tech stocks with simple narratives, and TSLA happened to be on the verge of solving both their main manufacturing problems and their short term financing problems.
No, I'm not convinced that we've learned anything about a decision-making formula would work reliably in the future. The formula that would have led people to buy TSLA in 2017 was to buy nearly broke potential disruptors in a capital-intensive, highly-competitive industry making products that were more expensive and inconvenient than their competitors, while counting on the company to maintain a triple-digit PE ratio even after having reached sustainability. This specific strategy would work at some points in the market cycle, but not others. Additionally, TSLA's good fortune was unique to it, as investors in Lordstown, Nikola, and Canoo discovered. It would be inconsistent to say "see, told ya" about TSLA, while not being invested in these firms and the numerous Chinese EV makers.
So I got in in July 2019. Some of the thoughts/experiences that drove this initial investment:
- Climate change is an existential threat and will out of necessity require a big money solution. Tesla seems to be on the right track to make it happen.
- I took my first test drive in a Model S in 2016. This was a bit of an eye opener and caused me to start watching what was going on with Tesla
- I've always been a space nerd, so I was aware of what was going on with SpaceX. These guys were landing rockets? No one expected that to work. Something is going on here... Watch this video if you haven't yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FZIwabctw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FZIwabctw)
- I Turo'd a Model 3 in summer of 2019 for a day. This knocked my socks off. A silent, fast, car that drives itself. Woah. I had no idea that these things were this good.
- I saw the second ever Starlink train in May 2019. These guys are making whole new astronomical sights. HOLY COW. They can do what they say that can, even if it sounds impossible.
- Press coverage of Tesla was very negative in 2018-2019. Lot's of angst over the Model 3 ramp. It seemed contrived as the ramp was happening, just a bit slower than expected. This reeked of short-term thought, which represents an opportunity for long term investment.
- I listened to Musk speak directly, not filtered through the media. (Why would you trust a communications major to tell you about technology!?!?) As an engineer, everything he said made perfect sense. His logic was very, very clear.
To sum this up, my decision making had nothing to do with finance (These indicators seem to be lagging, not leading). It had everything to do with rate of technological improvement and the size of the problem being solved for. I believe this formula still applies today. See previous posts about FSD if you're curious.
Is relatively easy to create an EV prototype that can approximate the range and performance of a Tesla. What none of these companies have proven, outside on Chinese companies selling within China, is that they can produce in mass profitably. Tesla has achieved this and has margins 3X the industry average on each vehicle sold. These margins will only increase with further economies of scale. Tesla also has the supercharger network. Do Rivian or Polestar have a supercharging network? Do they own their own battery production? Did they lock in raw material contracts for their battery cells years in advance? How will they grow to Tesla scale if they are limited by battery supply? Tesla’s lead isn’t shrinking, if anything its growing.
What is the most likely thing to disrupt Tesla's model? The same thing that disrupted American car companies before - Asian manufacturing expertise, electronics expertise, and ability to scale. Despite promises about the Model 3, which ended up costing as much as a BMW, Tesla remains unable to produce an affordable EV outside the luxury car market after about two decades of work. The Chinese will accomplish that with their shorter supply lines and more competitive market for basic materials, batteries, chips, components, etc.
Despite promises about the Model 3, which ended up costing as much as a BMW, Tesla remains unable to produce an affordable EV outside the luxury car market after about two decades of work.
Despite promises about the Model 3, which ended up costing as much as a BMW, Tesla remains unable to produce an affordable EV outside the luxury car market after about two decades of work.
Average new car price, 2022: $47,000
Tesla model 3 base model MSRP: $46,990
Seems pretty far from a "luxury car market" model if it's exactly average.
Despite promises about the Model 3, which ended up costing as much as a BMW, Tesla remains unable to produce an affordable EV outside the luxury car market after about two decades of work.
Average new car price, 2022: $47,000
Tesla model 3 base model MSRP: $46,990
Seems pretty far from a "luxury car market" model if it's exactly average.
I saw a 5 year cost analysis that put a new Tesla model 3 cheaper than a new Honda Accord when taking into account purchase price, gas/electricity cost, maintenance, and retained value. I think that past the 5 year point, the Tesla, or any EV would continue to pull significantly ahead past the 5 year mark.
Despite promises about the Model 3, which ended up costing as much as a BMW, Tesla remains unable to produce an affordable EV outside the luxury car market after about two decades of work.
Average new car price, 2022: $47,000
Tesla model 3 base model MSRP: $46,990
Seems pretty far from a "luxury car market" model if it's exactly average.
I finally screwed up investing in Tesla. I sold 1200-1300 covered calls for December way to early. I will end up with about $4M if I lose the shares. I am 37 and I am not sure what to do with my money after Tesla and I am plan to retire by the end of the year. I might get to keep 500 shares.
All this talk about wether or not a Tesla Model 3 is “luxury” or not, misses the point. Tesla could see the Model 3 for far less and profitably because the margins on Tesla vehicles are 3X of legacy ICE auto sales. Tesla could also build a compelling EV with 250 miles of range in the $25k range. They simply have no incentive to do that right now. Why spend capital to build out a new line when you are supply constrained and running a 6-12 month backlog with the demand for your current, high margin vehicles. When Tesla increases production capacity to meet current demand they will move down the price scale to expand market share.
So either...All this talk about wether or not a Tesla Model 3 is “luxury” or not, misses the point. Tesla could see the Model 3 for far less and profitably because the margins on Tesla vehicles are 3X of legacy ICE auto sales. Tesla could also build a compelling EV with 250 miles of range in the $25k range. They simply have no incentive to do that right now. Why spend capital to build out a new line when you are supply constrained and running a 6-12 month backlog with the demand for your current, high margin vehicles. When Tesla increases production capacity to meet current demand they will move down the price scale to expand market share.
That's a good point. There isn't much reason for them to make an economy car right now.
Regardless, they are luxury priced cars currently.
So either...All this talk about wether or not a Tesla Model 3 is “luxury” or not, misses the point. Tesla could see the Model 3 for far less and profitably because the margins on Tesla vehicles are 3X of legacy ICE auto sales. Tesla could also build a compelling EV with 250 miles of range in the $25k range. They simply have no incentive to do that right now. Why spend capital to build out a new line when you are supply constrained and running a 6-12 month backlog with the demand for your current, high margin vehicles. When Tesla increases production capacity to meet current demand they will move down the price scale to expand market share.
That's a good point. There isn't much reason for them to make an economy car right now.
Regardless, they are luxury priced cars currently.
1) they can't do it because of a lack of materials or capacity, and must prioritize, or
2) they're leaving the door open for other manufacturers to claim the middle/working class market.
We believe Tesla shares could offer a 10x return by 2030 – and potentially much more.*
• *Note: Our 10x by 2030 valuation assumptions include Tesla’s current business lines. This figure does not include Tesla’s planned
Robotaxi network or real-world AI product revenue, each of which have profound upside implications to our financial models.
from the link above:QuoteWe believe Tesla shares could offer a 10x return by 2030 – and potentially much more.*
• *Note: Our 10x by 2030 valuation assumptions include Tesla’s current business lines. This figure does not include Tesla’s planned
Robotaxi network or real-world AI product revenue, each of which have profound upside implications to our financial models.
10X return in just 8 years.....seems....incredible!
That would put Tesla at something like 4 times the market cap of the current second/third largest companies (Apple/Saudi Aramco)...and roughly an equal market cap to Apple, Aramco, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Amazon combined.
I suppose I should root for that, since I own some Tesla via index funds. I think if that scenario even started to play out, the regulatory hammer would break up the company, though.
-W
That would put Tesla at something like 4 times the market cap of the current second/third largest companies (Apple/Saudi Aramco)...and roughly an equal market cap to Apple, Aramco, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Amazon combined.Apple has nearly 6x its cap rate in the last 8 years(~2.75T) with no new product categories. Microsoft has nearly 8x in the same time period to ~1.6T and Amazon has 11x cap rate in the past 8 years to ~1.7T. It would be difficult to believe that Tesla would 10x in the next 8 years while these other massive companies had no change in cap rate. If Apple doubles in the next 8 years, it is at nearly 6T. With the new product growth and the existing product growth prospects of Tesla, I dont see why it couldn't get to 10T if the other companies are growing significantly without new product catagories.
I suppose I should root for that, since I own some Tesla via index funds. I think if that scenario even started to play out, the regulatory hammer would break up the company, though.
-W
That would put Tesla at something like 4 times the market cap of the current second/third largest companies (Apple/Saudi Aramco)...and roughly an equal market cap to Apple, Aramco, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Amazon combined.Apple has nearly 6x its cap rate in the last 8 years(~2.75T) with no new product categories. Microsoft has nearly 8x in the same time period to ~1.6T and Amazon has 11x cap rate in the past 8 years to ~1.7T. It would be difficult to believe that Tesla would 10x in the next 8 years while these other massive companies had no change in cap rate. If Apple doubles in the next 8 years, it is at nearly 6T. With the new product growth and the existing product growth prospects of Tesla, I dont see why it couldn't get to 10T if the other companies are growing significantly without new product catagories.
I suppose I should root for that, since I own some Tesla via index funds. I think if that scenario even started to play out, the regulatory hammer would break up the company, though.
-W
I do agree, Tesla will very unlikely grow 10x to 10T if all other companies stop growing over the next 8 years. With that said, I would wager more than one company will be at 10T market cap in the next 10 years and none of them will be broken up. Inflation is in its infancy, I don't think anyone is prepared for what is to come in the next 10 years.
That would put Tesla at something like 4 times the market cap of the current second/third largest companies (Apple/Saudi Aramco)...and roughly an equal market cap to Apple, Aramco, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Amazon combined.Apple has nearly 6x its cap rate in the last 8 years(~2.75T) with no new product categories. Microsoft has nearly 8x in the same time period to ~1.6T and Amazon has 11x cap rate in the past 8 years to ~1.7T. It would be difficult to believe that Tesla would 10x in the next 8 years while these other massive companies had no change in cap rate. If Apple doubles in the next 8 years, it is at nearly 6T. With the new product growth and the existing product growth prospects of Tesla, I dont see why it couldn't get to 10T if the other companies are growing significantly without new product catagories.
I suppose I should root for that, since I own some Tesla via index funds. I think if that scenario even started to play out, the regulatory hammer would break up the company, though.
-W
I do agree, Tesla will very unlikely grow 10x to 10T if all other companies stop growing over the next 8 years. With that said, I would wager more than one company will be at 10T market cap in the next 10 years and none of them will be broken up. Inflation is in its infancy, I don't think anyone is prepared for what is to come in the next 10 years.
well, crap, what do you think is coming in the next 10 years?
That would put Tesla at something like 4 times the market cap of the current second/third largest companies (Apple/Saudi Aramco)...and roughly an equal market cap to Apple, Aramco, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Amazon combined.Apple has nearly 6x its cap rate in the last 8 years(~2.75T) with no new product categories. Microsoft has nearly 8x in the same time period to ~1.6T and Amazon has 11x cap rate in the past 8 years to ~1.7T. It would be difficult to believe that Tesla would 10x in the next 8 years while these other massive companies had no change in cap rate. If Apple doubles in the next 8 years, it is at nearly 6T. With the new product growth and the existing product growth prospects of Tesla, I dont see why it couldn't get to 10T if the other companies are growing significantly without new product catagories.
I suppose I should root for that, since I own some Tesla via index funds. I think if that scenario even started to play out, the regulatory hammer would break up the company, though.
-W
I do agree, Tesla will very unlikely grow 10x to 10T if all other companies stop growing over the next 8 years. With that said, I would wager more than one company will be at 10T market cap in the next 10 years and none of them will be broken up. Inflation is in its infancy, I don't think anyone is prepared for what is to come in the next 10 years.
well, crap, what do you think is coming in the next 10 years?
If you think real estate and rent is expensive now, give it a few more years and let me know what you think. The middle and lower classes are going to spend more and more of their income on vehicles and housing until they are crushed. We might see a significant equity market crash(still not totally convinced of it), but I don't see it as turning into a multi-year bear market...yet. In the next 10 years, there will be unbelievably scary things happening for poor people and unbelievably good things happening for people with wealth and assets. I don't think government handouts are going to stop, pretty sure they will get bigger and more consistent.
Now more related to this thread...Historically, the automotive industry has led the way in factory and machinery automation. The first industrial robot was used in an automotive plant back in the 60s. Quality standards have been developed in the automotive industry that have bled over to any and all industries. I know a CEO of a regional healthcare system that brought his management team to Japan for training on the Toyota production system(TPS) in order to apply the management concepts to their healthcare business. It is not just about manufacturing best practices coming from the automotive industry, it is about management philosophy and practices driving the advancement and efficiency of all industries.
With this said, Telsa has redefined the guidebook for best practices for manufacturing. I don't think people understand the impact that a Tesla manufacturing system will have on all industries over the next 30 years. Managment of all industries for the past 30 years have been using the Toyota Production System(and variations of it) as a guide. Management of all industries will be using the Tesla manufacturing system as a guide for the next 30 years. The improvement in business operation, supply chain and manufacturing will have a cascading effect on all manufactured goods, driving down pricing and improving quality.
That would put Tesla at something like 4 times the market cap of the current second/third largest companies (Apple/Saudi Aramco)...and roughly an equal market cap to Apple, Aramco, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Amazon combined.Apple has nearly 6x its cap rate in the last 8 years(~2.75T) with no new product categories. Microsoft has nearly 8x in the same time period to ~1.6T and Amazon has 11x cap rate in the past 8 years to ~1.7T. It would be difficult to believe that Tesla would 10x in the next 8 years while these other massive companies had no change in cap rate. If Apple doubles in the next 8 years, it is at nearly 6T. With the new product growth and the existing product growth prospects of Tesla, I dont see why it couldn't get to 10T if the other companies are growing significantly without new product catagories.
I suppose I should root for that, since I own some Tesla via index funds. I think if that scenario even started to play out, the regulatory hammer would break up the company, though.
-W
I do agree, Tesla will very unlikely grow 10x to 10T if all other companies stop growing over the next 8 years. With that said, I would wager more than one company will be at 10T market cap in the next 10 years and none of them will be broken up. Inflation is in its infancy, I don't think anyone is prepared for what is to come in the next 10 years.
well, crap, what do you think is coming in the next 10 years?
If you think real estate and rent is expensive now, give it a few more years and let me know what you think. The middle and lower classes are going to spend more and more of their income on vehicles and housing until they are crushed. We might see a significant equity market crash(still not totally convinced of it), but I don't see it as turning into a multi-year bear market...yet. In the next 10 years, there will be unbelievably scary things happening for poor people and unbelievably good things happening for people with wealth and assets. I don't think government handouts are going to stop, pretty sure they will get bigger and more consistent.
Now more related to this thread...Historically, the automotive industry has led the way in factory and machinery automation. The first industrial robot was used in an automotive plant back in the 60s. Quality standards have been developed in the automotive industry that have bled over to any and all industries. I know a CEO of a regional healthcare system that brought his management team to Japan for training on the Toyota production system(TPS) in order to apply the management concepts to their healthcare business. It is not just about manufacturing best practices coming from the automotive industry, it is about management philosophy and practices driving the advancement and efficiency of all industries.
With this said, Telsa has redefined the guidebook for best practices for manufacturing. I don't think people understand the impact that a Tesla manufacturing system will have on all industries over the next 30 years. Managment of all industries for the past 30 years have been using the Toyota Production System(and variations of it) as a guide. Management of all industries will be using the Tesla manufacturing system as a guide for the next 30 years. The improvement in business operation, supply chain and manufacturing will have a cascading effect on all manufactured goods, driving down pricing and improving quality.
Toyota is a Japanese company. I don't have access to their global financial statements from 1994-2004 when they started sharing TPS with the world including the US.That would put Tesla at something like 4 times the market cap of the current second/third largest companies (Apple/Saudi Aramco)...and roughly an equal market cap to Apple, Aramco, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Amazon combined.Apple has nearly 6x its cap rate in the last 8 years(~2.75T) with no new product categories. Microsoft has nearly 8x in the same time period to ~1.6T and Amazon has 11x cap rate in the past 8 years to ~1.7T. It would be difficult to believe that Tesla would 10x in the next 8 years while these other massive companies had no change in cap rate. If Apple doubles in the next 8 years, it is at nearly 6T. With the new product growth and the existing product growth prospects of Tesla, I dont see why it couldn't get to 10T if the other companies are growing significantly without new product catagories.
I suppose I should root for that, since I own some Tesla via index funds. I think if that scenario even started to play out, the regulatory hammer would break up the company, though.
-W
I do agree, Tesla will very unlikely grow 10x to 10T if all other companies stop growing over the next 8 years. With that said, I would wager more than one company will be at 10T market cap in the next 10 years and none of them will be broken up. Inflation is in its infancy, I don't think anyone is prepared for what is to come in the next 10 years.
well, crap, what do you think is coming in the next 10 years?
If you think real estate and rent is expensive now, give it a few more years and let me know what you think. The middle and lower classes are going to spend more and more of their income on vehicles and housing until they are crushed. We might see a significant equity market crash(still not totally convinced of it), but I don't see it as turning into a multi-year bear market...yet. In the next 10 years, there will be unbelievably scary things happening for poor people and unbelievably good things happening for people with wealth and assets. I don't think government handouts are going to stop, pretty sure they will get bigger and more consistent.
Now more related to this thread...Historically, the automotive industry has led the way in factory and machinery automation. The first industrial robot was used in an automotive plant back in the 60s. Quality standards have been developed in the automotive industry that have bled over to any and all industries. I know a CEO of a regional healthcare system that brought his management team to Japan for training on the Toyota production system(TPS) in order to apply the management concepts to their healthcare business. It is not just about manufacturing best practices coming from the automotive industry, it is about management philosophy and practices driving the advancement and efficiency of all industries.
With this said, Telsa has redefined the guidebook for best practices for manufacturing. I don't think people understand the impact that a Tesla manufacturing system will have on all industries over the next 30 years. Managment of all industries for the past 30 years have been using the Toyota Production System(and variations of it) as a guide. Management of all industries will be using the Tesla manufacturing system as a guide for the next 30 years. The improvement in business operation, supply chain and manufacturing will have a cascading effect on all manufactured goods, driving down pricing and improving quality.
Is there evidence that this management premium showed up for Toyota in their share price?
30% gross margin before credits. That’s bananas.
What happens when EVs are everywhere, made by all manufacturers, the status-symbol value of driving a Tesla is the same as any other luxury brand, and the next tranche of customers is harder to convince than the early adopters? Will consumers continue to pay 30% of the price of a car for building it? Will investors continue to pay 200X earnings for the stock, when Ford could be had for 3.5X earnings and will likely be producing more EVs within a few years?
Meta and Netflix took sudden falls when investors realized the monopolistic growth story already happened, and margins would be a competitive slugfest from now on. TSLA has held up well so far, but the bottom line is we're in a very 2000-ish environment for growth stocks.
Meta and Netflix took sudden falls when investors realized the monopolistic growth story already happened, and margins would be a competitive slugfest from now on. TSLA has held up well so far, but the bottom line is we're in a very 2000-ish environment for growth stocks.We're a long way from fulfilling a monopolistic growth story.
They are well positioned to take a large chunk of the heavy vehicle (Semi) market
speaking of Tesla other lines of business,
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2020/01/17/whoever-leads-in-artificial-intelligence-in-2030-will-rule-the-world-until-2100/
whoever leads in artificial intelligence in 2030 will rule the world until 2100.
30% gross margin before credits. That’s bananas.
What happens when EVs are everywhere, made by all manufacturers, the status-symbol value of driving a Tesla is the same as any other luxury brand, and the next tranche of customers is harder to convince than the early adopters? Will consumers continue to pay 30% of the price of a car for building it? Will investors continue to pay 200X earnings for the stock, when Ford could be had for 3.5X earnings and will likely be producing more EVs within a few years?
Meta and Netflix took sudden falls when investors realized the monopolistic growth story already happened, and margins would be a competitive slugfest from now on. TSLA has held up well so far, but the bottom line is we're in a very 2000-ish environment for growth stocks.
They are well positioned to take a large chunk of the heavy vehicle (Semi) market
Are they though? They aren't making any semis anytime soon. And when they do, they'll be limited to short range regional trips at best. Cummins, Daimler, Volvo and others are at similar places with their EV semi offerings, so Tesla is unlikely to have first mover advantage. And the old guard in the industry already have established parts, sales and service networks across the nation as well as relationships with conservative fleet buyers. All of which TSLA would have to develop from scratch.
They are well positioned to take a large chunk of the heavy vehicle (Semi) market
Are they though? They aren't making any semis anytime soon. And when they do, they'll be limited to short range regional trips at best. Cummins, Daimler, Volvo and others are at similar places with their EV semi offerings, so Tesla is unlikely to have first mover advantage. And the old guard in the industry already have established parts, sales and service networks across the nation as well as relationships with conservative fleet buyers. All of which TSLA would have to develop from scratch.
Tesla already has plenty of orders for the Semi and has delivered a few to the largest truck fleet in the USA. Basically prototypes - expect actual production in 2023.
Tesla's advantage isn't in history of building diesel trucks. It's in a history of building and ramping production of EVs (something the legacy manufacturers keep screwing up - see battery issues with Leaf, Bolt, etc.) - it's not just about slapping an electric motor and battery pack in place of a diesel drivetrain.
Even more importantly: Battery (cell) supply. Tesla is FAR more aggressive at securing and developing a very robust cell supply, down to the raw material level. Buy cells from Panasonic? Samsung SDI? LG? CATL? - other manufacturers generally pick one. Tesla says "All of the above, plus we're going to roll our own too"
All I'm saying, is that in the best case, where Tesla's truck actually comes to market and is widely available before the legacy makers offerings (which is questionable, since the legacy guys have been testing their prototypes just as long as Tesla has), they still have to convince conservative fleet buyers to buy them and install chargers for them.
All I'm saying, is that in the best case, where Tesla's truck actually comes to market and is widely available before the legacy makers offerings (which is questionable, since the legacy guys have been testing their prototypes just as long as Tesla has), they still have to convince conservative fleet buyers to buy them and install chargers for them.
Let's try this again. "Tesla already has plenty of orders for the Semi and has delivered a few to the largest truck fleet in the USA."
They have plenty of other fleet orders from major fleet owners.
All I'm saying, is that in the best case, where Tesla's truck actually comes to market and is widely available before the legacy makers offerings (which is questionable, since the legacy guys have been testing their prototypes just as long as Tesla has), they still have to convince conservative fleet buyers to buy them and install chargers for them.
Let's try this again. "Tesla already has plenty of orders for the Semi and has delivered a few to the largest truck fleet in the USA."
They have plenty of other fleet orders from major fleet owners.
If Musk actually gave a damn about the planet he'd be hiring people to work on these technologies with his $43B instead of making the world safe for seditious tweets.
If Musk actually gave a damn about the planet he'd be hiring people to work on these technologies with his $43B instead of making the world safe for seditious tweets.
Are you blind to what he's built already? What he risked in putting his entire self-made fortune into a rocket and a electric car company? Name someone who's done more for the planet.
@Paper Chaser : The semi is not limited to short haul, I have no idea why you would claim that. A 500 mile range model is just about filling a long haul driver's legal hours. One charging break would make it way beyond - no truck driver can legally drive over 1000 miles in a day. A legal limit is about 660 miles (11 hours x 60mph average). Chargers will roll out once the trucks start being made. Just like the supercharger network didn't exist until the cars did, they aren't going to unveil a bunch of megachargers for trucks that don't exist yet. And trucks have much more defined routes than cars, it's super simple to figure out where to put the chargers to make them the most effective.
If Musk actually gave a damn about the planet he'd be hiring people to work on these technologies with his $43B instead of making the world safe for seditious tweets.
Are you blind to what he's built already? What he risked in putting his entire self-made fortune into a rocket and a electric car company? Name someone who's done more for the planet.
If Musk actually gave a damn about the planet he'd be hiring people to work on these technologies with his $43B instead of making the world safe for seditious tweets.
Are you blind to what he's built already? What he risked in putting his entire self-made fortune into a rocket and a electric car company? Name someone who's done more for the planet.
I think the jury's still out on whether or not those well spent resources. Tesla compared to ICE? Sure, that's better. What if we had spent the same human intelligence and resources developing better cities that needed fewer cars? That's an opportunity cost that never gets measured against.
I'm fascinated by the level of admiration people have for certain billionaires (who just so happen to run social media personal branding operations - but I'm sure that doesn't make a difference).If Musk actually gave a damn about the planet he'd be hiring people to work on these technologies with his $43B instead of making the world safe for seditious tweets.
Are you blind to what he's built already? What he risked in putting his entire self-made fortune into a rocket and a electric car company? Name someone who's done more for the planet.
I think the jury's still out on whether or not those well spent resources. Tesla compared to ICE? Sure, that's better. What if we had spent the same human intelligence and resources developing better cities that needed fewer cars? That's an opportunity cost that never gets measured against.
and theres no cure for cancer either!!......fucking musk!
I'm fascinated by the level of admiration people have for certain billionaires (who just so happen to run social media personal branding operations - but I'm sure that doesn't make a difference).If Musk actually gave a damn about the planet he'd be hiring people to work on these technologies with his $43B instead of making the world safe for seditious tweets.
Are you blind to what he's built already? What he risked in putting his entire self-made fortune into a rocket and a electric car company? Name someone who's done more for the planet.
I think the jury's still out on whether or not those well spent resources. Tesla compared to ICE? Sure, that's better. What if we had spent the same human intelligence and resources developing better cities that needed fewer cars? That's an opportunity cost that never gets measured against.
and theres no cure for cancer either!!......fucking musk!
Musk's actions are 100% compatible with any of the following motives, and yet we are all certain we know his personality based on what he allows us to see about him on our screens.
Possible Musk motives:
1) Make as much money as possible.
2) Become the most powerful person on the planet.
3) Become the most historically significant person of the early 21st century.
Not all of these possible motives align with your interests, even if you do want a Model 3.
Anyone here with money invested in Tesla have any concern over the extent to which Tesla's success is seemingly tied to Elon Musk and his public image?
Asking as someone invested in TSLA via index funds.
I actually think that historical titans of business like Thomas Edison or Andrew Carnegie--or even more recent ones like Walt Disney--benefitted from not being on Twitter, where we could have viewed their ignorant opinions about a variety of topics largely unrelated to the companies and legacies they built.
Anyone here with money invested in Tesla have any concern over the extent to which Tesla's success is seemingly tied to Elon Musk and his public image?
Asking as someone invested in TSLA via index funds.
I think you might be underestimating how much of Elon's function has to do with execution as opposed to lofty innovation.Anyone here with money invested in Tesla have any concern over the extent to which Tesla's success is seemingly tied to Elon Musk and his public image?
Asking as someone invested in TSLA via index funds.
He had to live in the factory for ~3 years to get over the "start-up" hurdle. If he got hit by a bus today, they would survive and thrive. The missions are clear for his businesses and they are run by competent lieutenants. The ability to move as fast or streamlined on new products and ideas may not happen with him gone, but both telsa and spaceX are beyond the startup phase. The next 5-10 years of innovation are already conceived at SpaceX and Tesla, they are executing now. This is why I have no concern over him shifting focus to Twitter to put a first principle thinking culture into the business and get their system in order.
Apples Cap rate has increased from 350B to 2.75T since Jobs died with essentially no new hardware class developments other than apple watch. If Elon was gone and all Tesla did was execute on already announced products, I don't see how much of anything would change in their growth projections for the next 5-10 years.
I think you might be underestimating how much of Elon's function has to do with execution as opposed to lofty innovation.
I think you might be underestimating how much of Elon's function has to do with execution as opposed to lofty innovation.
You seem to be underestimating his technical understanding and involvement to a significant degree. He wrote all the software for his first startup Zip2 while Kimbal ran the daytime business. If you can see him talking with an actual technical person in the appropriate field instead of a generic journalist, his expertise becomes very obvious.
Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t705r8ICkRw
That said, on a personal basis he is often an asshole and seems to be getting increasingly out of touch.
That said, on a personal basis he is often an asshole and seems to be getting increasingly out of touch."Elon Musk is a business ‘savant,’ but ‘his gift is not empathy,’ according to his brother Kimbal"
Elon Musk agreed to buy Twitter for $43 billion, but the market clearly doesn't think the deal happens for that price: TWTR has a $32 billion market cap.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TWTR/
I think the board might have to cave in to Mr Musk's demands. If Elon Musk pays $1 billion to Twitter and exits the deal, their stock will likely collapse further... say by another 20%, to $25 billion. So Mr Musk can say "how about $28 billion?", and the board may be pissed off about it, but what can they do? Mr Musk can pay $1 billion to shave $10 billion or so off the buy price. And when he takes control of the company - he gets control of his $1 billion back!
Running some math... avg proxy vote 86% participation means a majority is 43%. Mr Musk starts at 15%, and needs 28% for a majority... the board starts with 0% and has to get a full 43% to get their agenda. Because Mr Musk has 15% and the board 0%, even convincing 2/5th of voters to side with Musk gives him a majority. Jack Dorsey was pushed out in 2008, so my guess is he doesn't side with the current board, but rather with his friend Elon Musk. So then you get one of the most famous people for Twitter coming in and siding with Mr Musk.
I suspect Elon Musk wins the fight to buy Twitter. But until he's got the cash ready, there's a concern he will sell huge blocks of TSLA stock to come up with the money.
Elon Musk agreed to buy Twitter for $43 billion, but the market clearly doesn't think the deal happens for that price: TWTR has a $32 billion market cap.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TWTR/
I think the board might have to cave in to Mr Musk's demands. If Elon Musk pays $1 billion to Twitter and exits the deal, their stock will likely collapse further... say by another 20%, to $25 billion. So Mr Musk can say "how about $28 billion?", and the board may be pissed off about it, but what can they do? Mr Musk can pay $1 billion to shave $10 billion or so off the buy price. And when he takes control of the company - he gets control of his $1 billion back!
Running some math... avg proxy vote 86% participation means a majority is 43%. Mr Musk starts at 15%, and needs 28% for a majority... the board starts with 0% and has to get a full 43% to get their agenda. Because Mr Musk has 15% and the board 0%, even convincing 2/5th of voters to side with Musk gives him a majority. Jack Dorsey was pushed out in 2008, so my guess is he doesn't side with the current board, but rather with his friend Elon Musk. So then you get one of the most famous people for Twitter coming in and siding with Mr Musk.
I suspect Elon Musk wins the fight to buy Twitter. But until he's got the cash ready, there's a concern he will sell huge blocks of TSLA stock to come up with the money.
Is that legal? File to buy a company, back out to depress the price, and then file again at a lower price? Why wouldn't all mergers/takeovers happen that way?
There is interest from a fund that owns ~10% of the stock. Vanguard owns another 10%. Why would they agree to sell their shares at a lower price than the original offer because Musk was playing games?
In contrast to our views, M&A experts point to prior deals where a buyer was forced to purchase despite large stock drops. But in a normal M&A, Twitter would be 99% of the way to $54.20 ... not sitting at $40. So despite what M&A experts believe, the stock market believes the original deal is dead.Elon Musk agreed to buy Twitter for $43 billion, but the market clearly doesn't think the deal happens for that price: TWTR has a $32 billion market cap.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TWTR/
I think the board might have to cave in to Mr Musk's demands. If Elon Musk pays $1 billion to Twitter and exits the deal, their stock will likely collapse further... say by another 20%, to $25 billion. So Mr Musk can say "how about $28 billion?", and the board may be pissed off about it, but what can they do? Mr Musk can pay $1 billion to shave $10 billion or so off the buy price. And when he takes control of the company - he gets control of his $1 billion back!
Running some math... avg proxy vote 86% participation means a majority is 43%. Mr Musk starts at 15%, and needs 28% for a majority... the board starts with 0% and has to get a full 43% to get their agenda. Because Mr Musk has 15% and the board 0%, even convincing 2/5th of voters to side with Musk gives him a majority. Jack Dorsey was pushed out in 2008, so my guess is he doesn't side with the current board, but rather with his friend Elon Musk. So then you get one of the most famous people for Twitter coming in and siding with Mr Musk.
I suspect Elon Musk wins the fight to buy Twitter. But until he's got the cash ready, there's a concern he will sell huge blocks of TSLA stock to come up with the money.
Is that legal? File to buy a company, back out to depress the price, and then file again at a lower price? Why wouldn't all mergers/takeovers happen that way?
There is interest from a fund that owns ~10% of the stock. Vanguard owns another 10%. Why would they agree to sell their shares at a lower price than the original offer because Musk was playing games?
This is supposedly the contingency that led Twitter to put that $1B earnest money agreement into the contract, but as @MustacheAndaHalf points out, TWTR stock can lose 10x that much on a routine basis. Musk can legally walk away on the fake accounts excuse, and it'll cost him. I wouldn't think he could renegotiate the price though.
So maybe Dr. Evil on the TWTR board said "one BILLION dollars!" and everybody laughed except him, so that amount made it into the agreement. Is getting $1B out of Musk (probably after some litigation and at least a year of delay) worth the distraction his offer has created? Maybe. And maybe it makes sense for TWTR to negotiate a new, weaker moderation policy just so Musk will give up and they can take his $1B.
But the deal is far from dead. Musk's offer is still not out of the range of premiums typically paid in mergers and acquisitions.
Watching how Mr Musk dealt with events over the past few years tells me he's politically a libertarian.
I suspect Tesla's EV sales will pick up in rural areas over the next several years.
My thoughts exactly. But I would add Tesla was probably an even more distant competitor previously, compared to now. Ford is the favorite U.S. truck, which makes it the favorite of rural voters. And Tesla would be.. West Coast Elite... adjacent? I think by Elon Musk championing conservatives return to Twitter, he gains customers who might have ignored Tesla before.I suspect Tesla's EV sales will pick up in rural areas over the next several years.There's no doubt about that. Will it go up dramatically, though? Ford is already releasing the F150 EV and that style appeals to rural people far more than the goofy cybertruck.
My thoughts exactly. But I would add Tesla was probably an even more distant competitor previously, compared to now. Ford is the favorite U.S. truck, which makes it the favorite of rural voters. And Tesla would be.. West Coast Elite... adjacent? I think by Elon Musk championing conservatives return to Twitter, he gains customers who might have ignored Tesla before.I suspect Tesla's EV sales will pick up in rural areas over the next several years.There's no doubt about that. Will it go up dramatically, though? Ford is already releasing the F150 EV and that style appeals to rural people far more than the goofy cybertruck.
Tesla has already scaled up, while Ford needs to prove it can scale up EV (in the midst of chip shortages). In my view, Tesla is gaining on Ford in the EV truck market, but is still going to be a less popular choice if nothing changes from here.
I think it would be easier for Musk to burn the environmental goodwill he has with urban liberals...He already burned some environmental goodwill with me with his support for crypto.
However if Musk keeps making himself into a political lighting rod, what could happen is his core customers start rejecting Tesla - calling it Trumpla - and choosing EVs from any of its dozen competitors.That too. We bought a Chevy Bolt, but it was less than half the cost of a Tesla, so there's that.
I'd have to say Tesla isn't a good investment now. Elon Musk is alienating 1/2 of the country with his very recent tweets. I used to really like him and thought it would be cool to own a Tesla. I no longer feel that way and probably wouldn't want to ride in one as a guest passenger. He's been really unstable lately.
He tweeted this yesterday (May 18, 2022) :
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1dftZpiyGd_OfaeW5mBB72N8ij44nTcrB)
I'd have to say Tesla isn't a good investment now. Elon Musk is alienating 1/2 of the country with his very recent tweets. I used to really like him and thought it would be cool to own a Tesla. I no longer feel that way and probably wouldn't want to ride in one as a guest passenger. He's been really unstable lately.
He tweeted this yesterday (May 18, 2022) :
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1dftZpiyGd_OfaeW5mBB72N8ij44nTcrB)
I can't imagine making decisions about what kind of car I ride along in based on which political party the owner prefers at a point in time.
Sigh. I didn't think Elon Musk would announce he's a Libertarian (who are Republican), but I guess that proves my prior analysis right.
Elon Musk's brother says he's a genius at business, but empathy isn't his strong suit. Now he will definitely be acceptable to rural America... but what an odd choice for a tweet... Oh, no. I hope declaring one's politics isn't a prelude to getting more active in politics.
I'd have to say Tesla isn't a good investment now. Elon Musk is alienating 1/2 of the country with his very recent tweets. I used to really like him and thought it would be cool to own a Tesla. I no longer feel that way and probably wouldn't want to ride in one as a guest passenger. He's been really unstable lately.
He tweeted this yesterday (May 18, 2022) :
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1dftZpiyGd_OfaeW5mBB72N8ij44nTcrB)
I can't imagine making decisions about what kind of car I ride along in based on which political party the owner prefers at a point in time.
The guy is saying more than half of the country are divisive and hateful. I noticed he pinned the tweet this morning, then he removed the pin since then -- just checked his twitter feed. He also said Trump should be allowed back on the platform -- he was banned because he incited an insurrection on our nation's capital!
I don't have an NYT subscription to view that article.Sigh. I didn't think Elon Musk would announce he's a Libertarian (who are Republican), but I guess that proves my prior analysis right.
Elon Musk's brother says he's a genius at business, but empathy isn't his strong suit. Now he will definitely be acceptable to rural America... but what an odd choice for a tweet... Oh, no. I hope declaring one's politics isn't a prelude to getting more active in politics.
Libertarians believe in drugs and abortion. How many are really left in the GOP? NYT: The Elusive Politics of Elon Musk (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/16/business/elon-musk-politics-twitter.html).
All the same, declaring yourself a Republican to sell your electric cars seems like a poor strategy.
I think he's just finally being honest. Also being a car company CEO. I've never thought that he was a liberal, he's just making a buck trying to change car manufacturing (and batteries). It'd be like thinking Henry Ford was a liberal because he was making cars cheap and wanted to help the "little guy". No, he just figured out there's only so many millionaires to profit from, so he needed to expand business horizons. The Tesla-is-going-to-save-the-world nonsense has been out of control for a while now. Maybe some of the engineers at Tesla have different political leanings, but honestly who cares? Just churn out those cars and get gas guzzlers off the road!
Disclosure: I own a fair amount of Tesla stock.
I don't think that he said that the voters are divisive and hateful, but I could be wrong.There are more people registered in this country as democrat than republican; about 31% democrats, 30% republican and the rest indedependent if I recall -- and there is never an independent president who gets elected -- it's always DEM or GOP. People registered with the party are considered members of the democratic party. When he insults the democratic party his insulting 31% of all voters and over half of the country who voted for a democratic president -- Biden handedly beat Trump in popular vote. To call democrats divisive is a complete joke; I've never seen a GOP president so divisive as Trump was trying to steal an election and inciting an insurrection. Even Mitch McConnell, the GOPs most powerful republican in office currently, said on Jan 19, 2021 in a speech that Trump incited an insurrection on the nation's capital. And yet he still has a grip on the GOP, with Ted Cruz recently even making a joke about candidates getting Trump tattooed on their butts.
Sigh. I didn't think Elon Musk would announce he's a Libertarian (who are Republican), but I guess that proves my prior analysis right.
Elon Musk's brother says he's a genius at business, but empathy isn't his strong suit. Now he will definitely be acceptable to rural America... but what an odd choice for a tweet... Oh, no. I hope declaring one's politics isn't a prelude to getting more active in politics.
Libertarians believe in drugs and abortion. How many are really left in the GOP? NYT: The Elusive Politics of Elon Musk (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/16/business/elon-musk-politics-twitter.html).
All the same, declaring yourself a Republican to sell your electric cars seems like a poor strategy.
I'd have to say Tesla isn't a good investment now. Elon Musk is alienating 1/2 of the country with his very recent tweets. I used to really like him and thought it would be cool to own a Tesla. I no longer feel that way and probably wouldn't want to ride in one as a guest passenger. He's been really unstable lately.
He tweeted this yesterday (May 18, 2022) :
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1dftZpiyGd_OfaeW5mBB72N8ij44nTcrB)
I think he's just finally being honest. Also being a car company CEO. I've never thought that he was a liberal, he's just making a buck trying to change car manufacturing (and batteries). It'd be like thinking Henry Ford was a liberal because he was making cars cheap and wanted to help the "little guy". No, he just figured out there's only so many millionaires to profit from, so he needed to expand business horizons. The Tesla-is-going-to-save-the-world nonsense has been out of control for a while now. Maybe some of the engineers at Tesla have different political leanings, but honestly who cares? Just churn out those cars and get gas guzzlers off the road!
Disclosure: I own a fair amount of Tesla stock.
Musk spent years being a conservative boogeyman for wanting to build electric cars. Now he's the keeper of the faith. Twitter and Tesla stock are a mess right now because of this noise that has nothing to do with the performance of either company.
The guy is saying more than half of the country are divisive and hateful. I noticed he pinned the tweet this morning, then he removed the pin since then -- just checked his twitter feed. He also said Trump should be allowed back on the platform -- he was banned because he incited an insurrection on our nation's capital!
The guy is saying more than half of the country are divisive and hateful. I noticed he pinned the tweet this morning, then he removed the pin since then -- just checked his twitter feed. He also said Trump should be allowed back on the platform -- he was banned because he incited an insurrection on our nation's capital!
All that may be true but I don't think that addresses his point; probably only the most hardcore democrats would refrain from buying a Tesla although they really want one just because he wants to allow Trump on twitter.
If I really wanted a Tesla and could afford it, I'd buy it and wouldn't care at all what the CEO's politics are. It's a purchase, not a campaign donation.
His original motivation seems to be not to unleash the dark web on Twitter, but rather to allow anyone to speak on Twitter, even if their jokes offend Twitter's censors.
Given someone is Libertarian, which party should they join?
I think he's just finally being honest. Also being a car company CEO. I've never thought that he was a liberal, he's just making a buck trying to change car manufacturing (and batteries). It'd be like thinking Henry Ford was a liberal because he was making cars cheap and wanted to help the "little guy". No, he just figured out there's only so many millionaires to profit from, so he needed to expand business horizons. The Tesla-is-going-to-save-the-world nonsense has been out of control for a while now. Maybe some of the engineers at Tesla have different political leanings, but honestly who cares? Just churn out those cars and get gas guzzlers off the road!
Disclosure: I own a fair amount of Tesla stock.
Musk spent years being a conservative boogeyman for wanting to build electric cars. Now he's the keeper of the faith. Twitter and Tesla stock are a mess right now because of this noise that has nothing to do with the performance of either company.
People considering a $50k-150k purchase being swayed by the CEO's politics care too much about what others think, rather than what the product is and how it will fit their life.
I think he's just finally being honest. Also being a car company CEO. I've never thought that he was a liberal, he's just making a buck trying to change car manufacturing (and batteries). It'd be like thinking Henry Ford was a liberal because he was making cars cheap and wanted to help the "little guy". No, he just figured out there's only so many millionaires to profit from, so he needed to expand business horizons. The Tesla-is-going-to-save-the-world nonsense has been out of control for a while now. Maybe some of the engineers at Tesla have different political leanings, but honestly who cares? Just churn out those cars and get gas guzzlers off the road!
Disclosure: I own a fair amount of Tesla stock.
Musk spent years being a conservative boogeyman for wanting to build electric cars. Now he's the keeper of the faith. Twitter and Tesla stock are a mess right now because of this noise that has nothing to do with the performance of either company.
It's not like he never tried to manipulate stock prices with his antics before....
People considering a $50k-150k purchase being swayed by the CEO's politics care too much about what others think, rather than what the product is and how it will fit their life.
sure. for some people it may function as simply as that.
others may take a different pov.
seems the market may think a potential backlash to the company exist around this.
People considering a $50k-150k purchase being swayed by the CEO's politics care too much about what others think, rather than what the product is and how it will fit their life.
sure. for some people it may function as simply as that.
others may take a different pov.
seems the market may think a potential backlash to the company exist around this.
If any percentage of the recent price drop is the market "pricing in" people making or not making purchase decisions based on the CEO's politics, then the same is true for previous times when the market was pricing in people wanting or not wanting Teslas because they thought differently about Musk's politics.
I believe Rand Paul is considered Libertarian, but he's a member of the Republican party. It seems like most people just pick a major party. In a "winner take all" voting system like the U.S. uses, votes for smaller parties are generally wasted. (I know "ranked choice" is used in Europe, but I don't know how pervasive it is).Given someone is Libertarian, which party should they join?The Libertarian Party (https://www.lp.org/), obviously. While I don't agree with them or vote for them they do in fact have an ideologically consistent platform (https://www.lp.org/platform/) if you happen to believe in their first principles.
I believe Rand Paul is considered Libertarian, but he's a member of the Republican party. It seems like most people just pick a major party. In a "winner take all" voting system like the U.S. uses, votes for smaller parties are generally wasted. (I know "ranked choice" is used in Europe, but I don't know how pervasive it is).Given someone is Libertarian, which party should they join?The Libertarian Party (https://www.lp.org/), obviously. While I don't agree with them or vote for them they do in fact have an ideologically consistent platform (https://www.lp.org/platform/) if you happen to believe in their first principles.
It appears no Libertarian was elected to Congress before 2020.
https://reason.com/2020/04/29/justin-amash-becomes-the-first-libertarian-member-of-congress/
Of relevance to Mr Musk, Libertarians believe abortion is none of the government's business. That might help reduce the spotlight on him.
One reason it's so hard here is because Americans have this notion that if they vote for someone who has almost no chance of winning, they are "throwing away" their vote, even if that candidate more closely represents their values.I believe Rand Paul is considered Libertarian, but he's a member of the Republican party. It seems like most people just pick a major party. In a "winner take all" voting system like the U.S. uses, votes for smaller parties are generally wasted. (I know "ranked choice" is used in Europe, but I don't know how pervasive it is).Given someone is Libertarian, which party should they join?The Libertarian Party (https://www.lp.org/), obviously. While I don't agree with them or vote for them they do in fact have an ideologically consistent platform (https://www.lp.org/platform/) if you happen to believe in their first principles.
It appears no Libertarian was elected to Congress before 2020.
https://reason.com/2020/04/29/justin-amash-becomes-the-first-libertarian-member-of-congress/
Of relevance to Mr Musk, Libertarians believe abortion is none of the government's business. That might help reduce the spotlight on him.
Abortion, drugs, gay rights, keeping the government out of the bedroom, etc. Very different than the Texas GOP. Completely inline with stock sales priced at 420.69 which is probably why Musk likes them.
As for third parties in the USA, I'm not sure why it is so hard here. The UK also uses a "first over the post" not ranked choice voting system and has more than two parties. Some scholars have written about collusion between the Democrats and Republicans to keep it this way. But perhaps we will see a situation where the GOP in Texas looks very different than the GOP in Alaska, I don't know.
Many people think Musk started Tesla, and that's not true. He was an early venture capitalist who put money into the company in exchange for equity. Since then, his primary business talent has been convincing other people to invest in very expensive and unprofitable companies. The engineering, the aesthetic design, the financial planning, and probably the strategy has all been done by other people working at Tesla. Musk's role has been to go out, get attention, and raise money - and he's done a phenomenal job of that considering Tesla's valuation vs. the entire world's auto industry. Maintaining a six-figure PE ratio for a capital-intensive, heavy industry manufacturer is quite the feat and is probably not something seen since the 19th century railroad bubbles.
I believe Rand Paul is considered Libertarian, but he's a member of the Republican party.
Eberhard almost destroyed the company as CEO by lying to the board and investors literally for years about progress on the Roadster until his lies were discovered and he was ousted.
Even if all of those assumptions hold up, none of the renders that I've seen show a sleeper cab, so where does the driver get to rest if they're not returning to a central depot?The driver could lower their clock cycle speed, or maybe go into low power mode...
PDXTabs - If Tesla gets self-driving first, do their prior schedule mistakes matter? I think Tesla gets there first, especially with the simpler task of driving between cities. If their schedule problems put them behind an existing leader, that would be different.
PDXTabs - If Tesla gets self-driving first, do their prior schedule mistakes matter? I think Tesla gets there first, especially with the simpler task of driving between cities. If their schedule problems put them behind an existing leader, that would be different.
There is also the question of whether or not it happens at all. Its been a year out for... 7 years now? And predicted for the last 80 years. It looks like they're close to me, but I don't feel like I have the knowledge to judge how close we are
PDXTabs - If Tesla gets self-driving first, do their prior schedule mistakes matter? I think Tesla gets there first, especially with the simpler task of driving between cities. If their schedule problems put them behind an existing leader, that would be different.
There is also the question of whether or not it happens at all. Its been a year out for... 7 years now? And predicted for the last 80 years. It looks like they're close to me, but I don't feel like I have the knowledge to judge how close we are
Currently, all FSD-enabled Teslas drive from exit to exit on freeways without intervention, drivers could sleep between stops today if unattended FSD was approved for freeway use. Tesla FSD beta has ~100k users currently that are monitoring the self-driving features on any mapped road in the US and a number of them post videos of each new release. If you have insomnia check a couple out on youtube and it will put you right to sleep. They are collecting millions and millions of miles of testing/training data.
It is not about being done in a specific timeline, it is about acceptable risk. I would argue that as of today, the FSD beta is as good as a human driver on average on any road in the US. What I mean is that in some cases it is worse than a human and in other cases it is better than a human. However, to be accepted by unbelievers, as Tesla has stated, it needs to be a minimum of 10 times better than a human driver at a minimum before a broad launch without oversight is pursued. This is measured by accidents/disengagments per million miles.
Whether unattended approval is one or five years away matters not, they will be the safest and most accepted self-driving solution out there. No other self-driving company has a fraction of the number of driving mile dataset as Tesla.
PDXTabs - If Tesla gets self-driving first, do their prior schedule mistakes matter? I think Tesla gets there first, especially with the simpler task of driving between cities. If their schedule problems put them behind an existing leader, that would be different.
Suppose Tesla (or Waymo) develops FSD. How much would it cost to add this to a vehicle?
In theory, once the software is developed, it can be copied infinite times at a cost of near-nothing. In terms of hardware, you need some fast chips ($100?), a bunch of sensors ($1,000?), some wiring harnesses ($100?), and labor to install all of the above ($200?). All the remaining hardware are parts of the car that already exist such as cruise control, software-controlled braking, and electric steering control functions.
If the cars are tied with humans now, that's a really bad sign for consumer self driving cars. The problem is that each gain becomes exponentially harder. Staying between two lines is much simpler than knowing the thing behind a moving umbrella is probably a person with their lower half blocked by a parked car. Human knowledge about our environment becomes a larger and larger factor in the unusual cases, and the AI needs to cover all those cases better than a human driver. Not easy. I believe Elon Musk has said each change gets exponentially harder in an interview.
PDXTabs - If Tesla gets self-driving first, do their prior schedule mistakes matter? I think Tesla gets there first, especially with the simpler task of driving between cities. If their schedule problems put them behind an existing leader, that would be different.
There is also the question of whether or not it happens at all. Its been a year out for... 7 years now? And predicted for the last 80 years. It looks like they're close to me, but I don't feel like I have the knowledge to judge how close we are
Currently, all FSD-enabled Teslas drive from exit to exit on freeways without intervention, drivers could sleep between stops today if unattended FSD was approved for freeway use. Tesla FSD beta has ~100k users currently that are monitoring the self-driving features on any mapped road in the US and a number of them post videos of each new release. If you have insomnia check a couple out on youtube and it will put you right to sleep. They are collecting millions and millions of miles of testing/training data.
It is not about being done in a specific timeline, it is about acceptable risk. I would argue that as of today, the FSD beta is as good as a human driver on average on any road in the US. What I mean is that in some cases it is worse than a human and in other cases it is better than a human. However, to be accepted by unbelievers, as Tesla has stated, it needs to be a minimum of 10 times better than a human driver at a minimum before a broad launch without oversight is pursued. This is measured by accidents/disengagments per million miles.
Whether unattended approval is one or five years away matters not, they will be the safest and most accepted self-driving solution out there. No other self-driving company has a fraction of the number of driving mile dataset as Tesla.
If the cars are tied with humans now, that's a really bad sign for consumer self driving cars. The problem is that each gain becomes exponentially harder. Staying between two lines is much simpler than knowing the thing behind a moving umbrella is probably a person with their lower half blocked by a parked car. Human knowledge about our environment becomes a larger and larger factor in the unusual cases, and the AI needs to cover all those cases better than a human driver. Not easy. I believe Elon Musk has said each change gets exponentially harder in an interview.
I personally think this might be the big wild card. A poor metaphor is nuclear fusion; from what we've seen, we think it can be done, and have initial results that make it seem like we just have a couple of quirks to work out before it hits the prime time. After all, we did it with fission, and Elon certainly has had results of doing the improbable with spacex, so we think we can predict the technological advancement. But in reality we don't really have any idea of how long it will take, if it will happen at all. We've been predicting it since the 60's (both fission and self driving)...
Unfortunately for Tesla investors in this thread, I think this wild card favors Waymo over Tesla. The problem of AI driving a car is difficult - exponentially more difficult as you approach and pass up the skill of a human driver. That's roughly where the cutting edge is now. And from here, Waymo has an order of magnitude more software engineers working on it.If the cars are tied with humans now, that's a really bad sign for consumer self driving cars. The problem is that each gain becomes exponentially harder. Staying between two lines is much simpler than knowing the thing behind a moving umbrella is probably a person with their lower half blocked by a parked car. Human knowledge about our environment becomes a larger and larger factor in the unusual cases, and the AI needs to cover all those cases better than a human driver. Not easy. I believe Elon Musk has said each change gets exponentially harder in an interview.I personally think this might be the big wild card. A poor metaphor is nuclear fusion; from what we've seen, we think it can be done, and have initial results that make it seem like we just have a couple of quirks to work out before it hits the prime time. After all, we did it with fission, and Elon certainly has had results of doing the improbable with spacex, so we think we can predict the technological advancement. But in reality we don't really have any idea of how long it will take, if it will happen at all. We've been predicting it since the 60's (both fission and self driving)...
It's interesting to see the love for WAYMO here. Alphabet owns them, and they also have a stake in SpaceX, so you can be short-and long- Elon in the same play.^ THAT is hilarious.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/business/elon-musk-child-files-to-change-name-gender/index.html
tough to be musk today.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/business/elon-musk-child-files-to-change-name-gender/index.html
tough to be musk today.
Must you actually file something with a court to change gender?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/business/elon-musk-child-files-to-change-name-gender/index.html
tough to be musk today.
Must you actually file something with a court to change gender?
yes - it impacts passport, dr. license, lots of legal implications.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/business/elon-musk-child-files-to-change-name-gender/index.html
tough to be musk today.
Must you actually file something with a court to change gender?
yes - it impacts passport, dr. license, lots of legal implications.
All of those say "sex" for me... not gender
Back To Tesla...It looks like supply chain problems have caught up with Tesla with Musk even mentioning the "b" word. Shanghai production will be very low this quarter, which means Europe sales will be low. Austin production is practically non-existent and Berlin is 1000 cars/week, leaving Fremont as the only serious manufacturing plant.
A lot of the interview is related to our recent discussion here about the lack of hardware in Teslas for level 4/5 autonomous driving.I am curious if Edward is right or if Tesla is right. They spent a significant amount of time talking about Autopilot/FSD and crashing dangers. The data Tesla and NHTSA is reporting says that the Tesla is safer than other drivers/vehicles per mile drive and this guy is saying otherwise without any empirical data to back up his opinion.
A lot of the interview is related to our recent discussion here about the lack of hardware in Teslas for level 4/5 autonomous driving.I am curious if Edward is right or if Tesla is right. They spent a significant amount of time talking about Autopilot/FSD and crashing dangers. The data Tesla and NHTSA is reporting says that the Tesla is safer than other drivers/vehicles per mile drive and this guy is saying otherwise without any empirical data to back up his opinion.
https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2021-tesla-impact-report.pdf
see page 85
In 2019, motorcyclists were nearly 29 times more likely than passenger car occupants to die in a crash per vehicle miles traveled.
This traffic fatality number from the agency, however, happens to include bicycles, motorcycles, pedestrians, 18-wheelers and buses.
In fact, only 36 percent of the “traffic fatalities” listed by NHTSA in 2015 were occupants of passenger cars. (Another 28 percent were classified as light trucks, most of them presumably SUVs and pick-ups.)
A lot of the interview is related to our recent discussion here about the lack of hardware in Teslas for level 4/5 autonomous driving.I am curious if Edward is right or if Tesla is right. They spent a significant amount of time talking about Autopilot/FSD and crashing dangers. The data Tesla and NHTSA is reporting says that the Tesla is safer than other drivers/vehicles per mile drive and this guy is saying otherwise without any empirical data to back up his opinion.
https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2021-tesla-impact-report.pdf
see page 85
A lot of the interview is related to our recent discussion here about the lack of hardware in Teslas for level 4/5 autonomous driving.I am curious if Edward is right or if Tesla is right. They spent a significant amount of time talking about Autopilot/FSD and crashing dangers. The data Tesla and NHTSA is reporting says that the Tesla is safer than other drivers/vehicles per mile drive and this guy is saying otherwise without any empirical data to back up his opinion.
https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2021-tesla-impact-report.pdf
see page 85
Given the news from June 2022 of Tesla deactivating autopilot right before crashes (https://www.motortrend.com/news/nhtsa-tesla-autopilot-investigation-shutoff-crash/) I don't trust anything that Telsa tells me anymore. This is in part because I almost put money down on a Model 3 for the promise of self driving that never came. They're just liars (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7oZ-AQszEI). I wouldn't buy their stock and I wouldn't buy their cars.
EDITed to add: "You have the choice of the supercharger which is and will always be free or you have the choice of a battery pack swap." - Elon Musk 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5V0vL3nnHY
EDIT2 for some more times that Tesla said stuff was coming that wasn't. C&D: Elon Musk Makes Fresh Claim about Tesla Robotaxi, Saying Production to Start by 2024 (https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a39785992/elon-musk-tesla-robotaxi-2024/) At this rate GM might beat Tesla to level 5 autonomous driving.
There is a political lesson buried in these anecdotes:Hear! hear!
We prefer bold liars to people who make realistic promises.
There is a political lesson buried in these anecdotes:Hear! hear!
We prefer bold liars to people who make realistic promises.
A lot of discussion on this thread a year to two back regarding Tesla’s PE ratio. The bearish folks derided Tesla as a bad investment because it’s PE ratio was running as high as 1,400 at its worst. The bullish folks pointed out PE ratios are a rather worthless metric for a growth company that’s engaged in a capital intensive industry, growing 50% YOY, and redeploying profits to fund rapid growth and capture market share. Fast forward to today and Tesla has paid off nearly all long-term debt, is sitting on nearly 20 billion in cash, is still growing 50% YOY, and has a PE ratio right around 100. Pretty much unheard of for a company in this phase of its growth trajectory to have a PE ratio below 100. Consider that this drop in PE occurred over the same time period that Tesla has built, staffed, and opened two new factories. Tesla financials are about to take off again on the next leg up as these factories rapidly ramp over the next 6-9 months while maintaining 30% plus auto margins. The current stock price represents a bargain given what is just around the bend. Not advice, your mileage may vary, but consider the stock price is currently sitting at the same level as it was when Tesla’s PE ratio was ~1400.
Kind of like Elon saying that Tesla and SpaceX he thought had about a 10-20% chance of succeeding when he funded them at the start. Yup agreed. The majority of these types of companies die when the funding dries up just like the majority of the current start-up EV companies will die and the majority of legacy autos attempts to transition to BEV will die. Those legacy auto companies might not die, but will be a shell of its former self without a BEV offering.
On the flip side, Tesla still doesn't offer full-self-driving-cars, economical solar roof shingles, the "cybertruck", or a $40k BEV. They managed to succeed despite all these product/promise failures because they got access to cheap capital, because management managed to rein in Musk's impulsiveness, and because they persuaded lots of people to pay them enormous margins. There were plenty of unfulfilled promises two years ago too. The critics, me included, saw the lies / hype and figured that profitability and scale would be a lie too.
There were lots of "environmental" companies that were smoke screens for the preceding 20 years, and Tesla ten years ago seemed to fit right into that template. Anyone who bought many of the solar, geothermal, hydrogen fuel cell, etc. companies back then was generally wiped out, as the industry was full of fake products and companies that were little more than empty shells of promises.
On a side note, how exactly did Tesla persuade lots of people to pay them enormous margins?By producing an appealing vehicle in reasonable volume.
On a side note, how exactly did Tesla persuade lots of people to pay them enormous margins?
On a side note, how exactly did Tesla persuade lots of people to pay them enormous margins?
That's a very good question. The 5-year cost of ownership for a Model 3 is similar to a BMW 3 series, and yet the Model 3 requires its owner to plan around their range anxiety and deal with hours-long recharges as opposed to ten-minute fill-ups. A brand new Civic costs almost half as much to own as a used Tesla. It would seem like people looking for luxury would gravitate toward the most convenient solution, and the people looking to a car that makes financial sense would gravitate toward the most economical solution.
Even after years of technological improvement, Teslas are still neither economical nor convenient when compared to their ICE and hybrid competitors. That's why Tesla's early product managers made the decision to compete in the market for performance vehicles, where looks and acceleration are more important than practical concerns, and where paying enormous margins for unreliable small-batch vehicles was already the norm. That still doesn't explain why any work commuter should choose a Tesla over a Civic. It makes no financial sense, but then again neither do the vast majority of cars on U.S. roads.
yet the Model 3 requires its owner to plan around their range anxiety and deal with hours-long recharges as opposed to ten-minute fill-ups. A brand new Civic costs almost half as much to own as a used Tesla.
Interesting that you’d stop the cost of ownership comparison at 3 years. Would love to see the source for that.
Really this is starting to sound like an argument about pepsi vs coke vs royal crown cola. You can argue till your blue in the face that the premium charge on coca cola is ridiculous, it doesn't cost them any more money to produce coke than it does to produce pepsi - but what do you think that will accomplish? Will people stop buying coca cola because you told them the premium isn't "justified"? But what measure?
| Ticker | P/E |
| PEP | 26.43 |
| KO | 28.93 |
| BMW.DE | 2.72 |
| F | 5.02 |
| GM | 6.77 |
| NSANY | 9.29 |
| TSLA | 102.59 |
Now compare their respective gross margins, operating margins, revenue growth, earnings growth, cash flow, and debt.Really this is starting to sound like an argument about pepsi vs coke vs royal crown cola. You can argue till your blue in the face that the premium charge on coca cola is ridiculous, it doesn't cost them any more money to produce coke than it does to produce pepsi - but what do you think that will accomplish? Will people stop buying coca cola because you told them the premium isn't "justified"? But what measure?
Since we are talking about investing in TSLA I don't think that's true.
Ticker P/E PEP 26.43 KO 28.93 BMW.DE 2.72 F 5.02 GM 6.77 NSANY 9.29 TSLA 102.59
Really this is starting to sound like an argument about pepsi vs coke vs royal crown cola. You can argue till your blue in the face that the premium charge on coca cola is ridiculous, it doesn't cost them any more money to produce coke than it does to produce pepsi - but what do you think that will accomplish? Will people stop buying coca cola because you told them the premium isn't "justified"? But what measure?
Since we are talking about investing in TSLA I don't think that's true.
Ticker P/E PEP 26.43 KO 28.93 BMW.DE 2.72 F 5.02 GM 6.77 NSANY 9.29 TSLA 102.59
Looking at where that information is sourced, it was for 2021 model year estimates - which means gasoline prices at about half what they are today.Interesting that you’d stop the cost of ownership comparison at 3 years. Would love to see the source for that.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but ChpBstrd referred to 5 year cost of ownership and Tesla itself says the 2021 Model 3 RWD is more expensive per mile over 5 years/60k miles than a Camry, but less than a 3 series. Tesla 2021 Impact Report, p. 78.
I got curious and went to tesla.com. I was taken aback by the prices. No wonder their margins are high. They just keep raising prices as they want over the years and demand continues to be there for them.
Do you all think the split will have any direct effect on the current stock price?
Do you all think the split will have any direct effect on the current stock price?
The last time TSLA split, it was a 1 to 5 split. The stock price per share fell, but then quickly ramped back up to current levels. I'm assuming the upcoming 1 to 3 split will follow a similar trajectory.
Do you all think the split will have any direct effect on the current stock price?
The last time TSLA split, it was a 1 to 5 split. The stock price per share fell, but then quickly ramped back up to current levels. I'm assuming the upcoming 1 to 3 split will follow a similar trajectory.
so far your prediction is on track, lol!
I would recommend this video to anyone who has an interest in investing in Tesla: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpzJPe1DrzQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpzJPe1DrzQ). Tesla's self driving software is still improving rapidly. When (Not if) this software surpasses human driving ability, it will be massively valuable. I suspect that this will occur in the next couple of years.
The purpose of this video is as a raw data point on the progression of FSD beta for those who do not have the ability to get hands on experience.I would recommend this video to anyone who has an interest in investing in Tesla: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpzJPe1DrzQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpzJPe1DrzQ). Tesla's self driving software is still improving rapidly. When (Not if) this software surpasses human driving ability, it will be massively valuable. I suspect that this will occur in the next couple of years.
Not sure I found that video super-informative. But it does seem that it is getting ready for prime time.
I was wondering if this is why the semi production is ahead of the cybertruck. If FSD is going to come into being sooner, the demand on the semi I think will be huge.
The purpose of this video is as a raw data point on the progression of FSD beta for those who do not have the ability to get hands on experience.I would recommend this video to anyone who has an interest in investing in Tesla: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpzJPe1DrzQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpzJPe1DrzQ). Tesla's self driving software is still improving rapidly. When (Not if) this software surpasses human driving ability, it will be massively valuable. I suspect that this will occur in the next couple of years.
Not sure I found that video super-informative. But it does seem that it is getting ready for prime time.
I was wondering if this is why the semi production is ahead of the cybertruck. If FSD is going to come into being sooner, the demand on the semi I think will be huge.
I have a M3 with FSD beta. While I am still a better driver than it overall, I increasingly have moments where the car makes better decisions than me. It is very weird having a computer understand the world better than I do. This is not a trend that will reverse.
I'm not sure how this will affect Tesla, but I just got a Nissan Leaf and wow, it's great. Costs very little (it was like $10k used), plenty of range for the in-town sort of stuff I want to use it fork, and costs pennies a mile to operate.
It sounds like the newer Leaf (which costs ~$25 after tax incentives) has a 250 mile range which is probably in the ballpark of what people will accept so it seems like there's going to be more competition for Tesla as soon as the world can make enough batteries and charging stations.
So I'm bullish as hell on electric cars. I'm neutral on Tesla in particular, because that space is about to get really crowded it seems.
-W
I'm not sure how this will affect Tesla, but I just got a Nissan Leaf and wow, it's great. Costs very little (it was like $10k used), plenty of range for the in-town sort of stuff I want to use it fork, and costs pennies a mile to operate.
It sounds like the newer Leaf (which costs ~$25 after tax incentives) has a 250 mile range which is probably in the ballpark of what people will accept so it seems like there's going to be more competition for Tesla as soon as the world can make enough batteries and charging stations.
So I'm bullish as hell on electric cars. I'm neutral on Tesla in particular, because that space is about to get really crowded it seems.
-W
What year, @waltworks ? We need to get a new car and an "around town" EV is the best choice.
So I'm bullish as hell on electric cars. I'm neutral on Tesla in particular, because that space is about to get really crowded it seems.
Ah, Market does what Market does. I bet some folks are scratching their heads after today.
This article says Elon Musk's text messages reveal he is surrounded by yes-men who tell him whatever he wants to hear.
https://slate.com/technology/2022/09/elon-musk-text-messages-twitter-yes-men.html (https://slate.com/technology/2022/09/elon-musk-text-messages-twitter-yes-men.html)
This could explain a lot.
Ah, Market does what Market does. I bet some folks are scratching their heads after today.
Delivery problems or a weakening in certain markets, such as China?
what are people thinking about their plant watering robot?
I'm excited, been waiting for Rosie for decades!!! but concerned about the implications for other promises, like the cybertruck.
Interested in the thoughts from the tesla bulls on recent developments. I think there is a lot of good news for the company, the semi coming out this year for Pepsi, the giga press for the cybertruck being delivered, and of course the future robot ;P.I can relate to your feelings. As impressed as I am with Tesla and their contributions to super charge EV adoption being a successful example in the space, I decided I will never buy any of their products because of Elon and his antics. He is toxic and a bully. I hate Bullies. Any other CEO would have been thrown out by now.
But then the ongoing elon shit show of shit publicity and then there were some disappointment with Q3 deliveries although financials won't be aired until Oct 19.
Any conerns? Wait-and-see? Buying op?
Curious how you all are seeing this.
I'm also curious how much you all think musk and tesla intertwine. I think he was great for the company initially, but I am not sure how much his visionary, attention garnering role is needed anymore. I'm not sure how much the cutting edge of tesla depends on him vs those in the trenches.
And I worry that his management style could really reple the top talent that tesla needs. It's been said the consumers are getting more EV options - which while true, doesn't really take away from Tesla's place in the market. However, that also means that potential and current employees also have more choices, and thanks to tesla's success - those paths at other companies are open to them.
I really love tesla, the weird range and yet cohesiveness of their offerings - cars, roofs, powerwall....and I'm hoping they robot their way to a household rosie. But musk is becoming increasingly unlikeable to a broader public - in ways that can very much hurt the company - like tweeting about the Ukrainian war and his misguided ideas favoring russia, getting super political. Let's just say I have concerns! I wish he'd knuckle down and get this cybertruck out the door and stop trying insert himself into everything. looking pretty narcissistic.
Interested in the thoughts from the tesla bulls on recent developments. I think there is a lot of good news for the company, the semi coming out this year for Pepsi, the giga press for the cybertruck being delivered, and of course the future robot ;P.I can relate to your feelings. As impressed as I am with Tesla and their contributions to super charge EV adoption being a successful example in the space, I decided I will never buy any of their products because of Elon and his antics. He is toxic and a bully. I hate Bullies. Any other CEO would have been thrown out by now.
But then the ongoing elon shit show of shit publicity and then there were some disappointment with Q3 deliveries although financials won't be aired until Oct 19.
Any conerns? Wait-and-see? Buying op?
Curious how you all are seeing this.
I'm also curious how much you all think musk and tesla intertwine. I think he was great for the company initially, but I am not sure how much his visionary, attention garnering role is needed anymore. I'm not sure how much the cutting edge of tesla depends on him vs those in the trenches.
And I worry that his management style could really reple the top talent that tesla needs. It's been said the consumers are getting more EV options - which while true, doesn't really take away from Tesla's place in the market. However, that also means that potential and current employees also have more choices, and thanks to tesla's success - those paths at other companies are open to them.
I really love tesla, the weird range and yet cohesiveness of their offerings - cars, roofs, powerwall....and I'm hoping they robot their way to a household rosie. But musk is becoming increasingly unlikeable to a broader public - in ways that can very much hurt the company - like tweeting about the Ukrainian war and his misguided ideas favoring russia, getting super political. Let's just say I have concerns! I wish he'd knuckle down and get this cybertruck out the door and stop trying insert himself into everything. looking pretty narcissistic.
While tesla has been a great investment so far, they will have to contend plenty of competition in EV space for years to come. 30 to 40 automobile manufacturers are in various stages of making EVs for mass adoption.
Tesla has the lion's share of the EV sales.
Tesla has the lion's share of the EV sales.
Not in China, the largest EV market. The top EV was the Wuling Hong Guang MINI EV at 161,579 (through May). Tesla sold 81,125 Model Ys through the same period.*
Tesla is losing the race because it has no model for the much larger, non-rich, demographic.
If Tesla doesn't create a down-market car (even by American/European standards), it might well remain a semi/luxury brand like BMW or Audi. That's a high margin business but it will never achieve the same sales as Honda or Toyota.
* https://insideevs.com/news/594260/china-plugin-car-sales-may-2022/
Considering the average sale price of a new car in the US today is around $50k, the Tesla is not really luxury priced. Maybe just a bit above average. Does anyone remember the Yugo? Cheap is often found to not be the cheapest option.
Tesla has the lion's share of the EV sales.
Not in China, the largest EV market. The top EV was the Wuling Hong Guang MINI EV
Tesla has the lion's share of the EV sales.
Not in China, the largest EV market. The top EV was the Wuling Hong Guang MINI EV at 161,579 (through May). Tesla sold 81,125 Model Ys through the same period.*
Tesla is losing the race because it has no model for the much larger, non-rich, demographic.
If Tesla doesn't create a down-market car (even by American/European standards), it might well remain a semi/luxury brand like BMW or Audi. That's a high margin business but it will never achieve the same sales as Honda or Toyota.
* https://insideevs.com/news/594260/china-plugin-car-sales-may-2022/
Nokia had a 50% market share in 2007 and it got to that market share by selling cheap non-smartphones. Today, BMW and Audi...errr...I mean, Android and Apple are the std for personal phones in the very large, non-rich, demographic.
Considering the average sale price of a new car in the US today is around $50k, the Tesla is not really luxury priced. Maybe just a bit above average. Does anyone remember the Yugo? Cheap is often found to not be the cheapest option.
A fancy smart phone is magnitudes of order more useful than an old Nokia brick, whereas a luxury car really doesn’t provide any productive value above a cheaper option, it’s purely extra luxury.
To the folks who don't like Elon Musk, have you let your dislike color your judgement on the Tesla products and businesses?
A fancy smart phone is magnitudes of order more useful than an old Nokia brick, whereas a luxury car really doesn’t provide any productive value above a cheaper option, it’s purely extra luxury.
Precisely. Tesla have hopes to provide significantly more value (autopilot), but until the tech actually proves out and the regulations allow it, that value isn't there. And it's questionable about how that tech will play out. It very well could completely change the entire transportation industry (something which the current Tesla valuation seems to take as 100% inevitable). I think the roadblocks to that are bigger than the visionaries suspect, but we need visionaries to push the boundaries so I hold my tongue there. I do question the need for cars as transport as a baseline, but that's not really a Tesla problem. I would hope that they have a mediocre future not because I dislike EVs (I love them), but because I dislike our reliance on cars in general. Relative to other automakers, I think they will be successful.To the folks who don't like Elon Musk, have you let your dislike color your judgement on the Tesla products and businesses?
Speaking for myself, I don't hold much disdain for the person himself. I do try to account for his personal biases and powerful influence on his companies when predicting the path of the companies. Tesla is it's own company and could run without him, but ultimately he has more influence on them than can be written off. He has some strong personal beliefs that I don't think hold up to the completely meticulous "first principles" thinking that he touts (such as his disdain for motorcycles, his neutrality on nuclear power as a clean energy source, his seemingly whimsical personal life etc.). He's ultimately just a person... it would be just as questionable if I were in charge of Tesla with my personal biases.
(autopilot), but until the tech actually proves out and the regulations allow it, that value isn't there. And it's questionable about how that tech will play out.
Optimus, also known as Tesla Bot, is a conceptual general-purpose robotic humanoid under development by Tesla, Inc.[1] It was announced at the company's Artificial Intelligence (AI) Day event on August 19, 2021.[1] CEO Elon Musk claimed during the event that Tesla would likely build a prototype by 2022.[2] Musk is on record having said that he thinks Optimus "has the potential to be more significant than the vehicle business over time."[3]
I think the fact that they saw where the FSD was going and decided to put that to use in a humanoid robot is pretty signficant. I'm a little freaked out about it, tbh, but super excited if a 20k purchase could mean spotless floors, toilets, and countertops every day for the rest of my life. Oh - and can it paint the porch? wash fold and put clothes away?? I'm beyond excited about where it is going, as long as - you know - no skynet.
I think the fact that they saw where the FSD was going and decided to put that to use in a humanoid robot is pretty signficant. I'm a little freaked out about it, tbh, but super excited if a 20k purchase could mean spotless floors, toilets, and countertops every day for the rest of my life. Oh - and can it paint the porch? wash fold and put clothes away?? I'm beyond excited about where it is going, as long as - you know - no skynet.
This reads as satire to me... we aren't even remotely close to having the robot that you speak of... folks have been talking about robotic assistance since the 1950's... yet here we are.
For decades, we moaned about jet packs never becoming a reality and then boom - they happened.
For decades, we moaned about jet packs never becoming a reality and then boom - they happened.
Ok, I'll buy that... but you're basically saying that you don't know when it will happen. Which I agree with. It's easy to look at a Roomba an think that we're 90% there, but what we don't know is how hard that last 10% is (it's certainlly much harder than the first 90%). We didn't have nuclear fission except in principle, then, BAM! we had it. We didn't have nuclear fusion and then... well, it's been 10 years away for the last 70 years... the point is that it's impossible to predict. Valuating Tesla as though autonomic household robots are inevitable in any kind of short term time frame is pie in the sky optimism. Many of us who pay attention to the AI space know that AI can be convincingly further along than it really is. The self driving car seems like it came out of nowhere, but it's really be a long slow trudge to get here, and likely a long slow trudge to go further.
https://www.tomorrowsworldtoday.com/2021/08/09/history-of-autonomous-cars/
BTW, jet packs still aren't a "reality" in that they're not really accessible or practical for anything. And they didn't appear out of nowhere, they had a similar long slow development.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_pack
Following the Tesla Bot display at the Cyber Rodeo event, scientist Gary Marcus stated he would "bet that no robot will be able to do all human tasks by the end of 2023."[3]
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.
Of course no one knows for sure and its possible something bad could happen to them, but they have been killing it this year with production and sales growth and still the share price is sinking given the negative overall market. We could see a huge spike when the market shifts. I don't think Tesla stock will increase until inflation is under control and fed shifts because right now it drops a lot on any minor bad news and positive developments don't do much of anything.
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.
Doesn't make sense to compare them to legacy auto.
Those companies have an outdated and inefficient businesses model that is saddling them with limited profitability, ie high sales and marketing costs including the dealerships and expensive ice car infrastructure that doesn't translate \ help with EV production where the entire market is headed over the next 10-15 years.
Tesla could have a huge reduction in EV market share and a high growth rate since EV is a low percentage of vehicles and will eventually be the entire market.
They have a high PE ratio now given the high growth rate are nowhere near priced to perfection, there is speculation\ articles saying they could have a higher market cap than Apple by 2030.
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.
There is always speculation. I'd argue that TSLA has tons of speculation built into it's current price. Speculation about autopilot, future market domination, growing profit margins, robots, new models that have been "in the pipeline" for many years now and their domination, etc. The current price seems to take that speculation for granted in my opinion. It's clearly been a very profitable investment for tons of people, and the future is untold. Personally, I don't see the potential for massive growth in share price from here
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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
(https://www.counterpointresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Counterpoint-Research-Global-Smartphone-Market-Q2-2022.png)
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 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
(https://www.counterpointresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Counterpoint-Research-Global-Smartphone-Market-Q2-2022.png)
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 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)
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.
https://electrek.co/2022/10/18/us-electric-vehicle-sales-by-maker-and-ev-model-through-q3-2022/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.
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."
WSJ: Tesla’s Valuation Doesn’t Add Up Today, Never Mind $4.4 Trillion Tomorrow (https://www.wsj.com/articles/teslas-valuation-doesnt-add-up-today-never-mind-4-4-trillion-tomorrow-11666226947)Yes, WSJ has been consistently negative about Tesla for over a decade.
WSJ: Tesla’s Valuation Doesn’t Add Up Today, Never Mind $4.4 Trillion Tomorrow (https://www.wsj.com/articles/teslas-valuation-doesnt-add-up-today-never-mind-4-4-trillion-tomorrow-11666226947)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...)
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 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
(https://www.counterpointresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Counterpoint-Research-Global-Smartphone-Market-Q2-2022.png)
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.
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
(https://www.counterpointresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Counterpoint-Research-Global-Smartphone-Market-Q2-2022.png)
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.
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?
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
(https://www.counterpointresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Counterpoint-Research-Global-Smartphone-Market-Q2-2022.png)
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.
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.
oh, and now robots.... :D
QuoteWith 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.QuoteIn 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.QuoteTesla 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.QuoteTesla 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.
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?
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?
QuoteWith 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.QuoteIn 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.QuoteTesla 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.QuoteTesla 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.
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
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.
I suggest reviewing the projects already under development. Here's a starter from ERCOT: https://www.ercot.com/misdownload/servlets/mirDownload?doclookupId=868860006
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.
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.
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?
maybe do nuclear on the moon?
LOL! C'mon - China? You know that's not a viable alternative in the USA or Europe.
*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.
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.
Good thing this wasn't directed at me, since I did not get that wrong and have not done so for years.I suggest reviewing the projects already under development. Here's a starter from ERCOT: https://www.ercot.com/misdownload/servlets/mirDownload?doclookupId=868860006Uh, one thing that battery folks often get very wrong is the distinction between GW and GWh.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
I totally get that, but that means he gets to do what he wants with his companies.
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
(https://www.counterpointresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Counterpoint-Research-Global-Smartphone-Market-Q2-2022.png)
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.
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?
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).
QuoteOur 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.
QuoteOur 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.
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.
Yes, you keep making that unsupported claim. It is not convincing in the slightest without some proof - something you have notably failed to provide. My understanding is that they actually enjoyed noticeable local support. Any large industrial construction project will have some pushback, but nothing I've seen shows they had any unusual pushback.
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 fearGosh if only someone in the industry had paid attention to standards requirements and how they had changed since the 1960s before they put in their bid. You know, like any other construction project in the world.
China proves that they can be built fast and well. That is all. You said they couldn't. They can.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-cuts-prices-in-china-on-concern-over-softening-demand-153018911.html - Tesla cuts prices in China on concern over softening demandI expect they have higher costs when making cars in the USA.
Interesting bit in the the story for me is
"The automaker cut prices across the board for its offerings in China, with the entry-level Model 3 sedan dropping by nearly 5% to 279,000 yuan, and the entry level Model Y SUV’s price coming down by 9% to 316,000 yuan"
In china tesla is selling model 3 at $38413.88 and model Y at $43508 USD . At the same time in US they are selling model 3 at $47000 USD and model Y at $66000 USD.
Tesla seems to be taking their US customers for a ride for long while now.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-cuts-prices-in-china-on-concern-over-softening-demand-153018911.html - Tesla cuts prices in China on concern over softening demandI expect they have higher costs when making cars in the USA.
Interesting bit in the the story for me is
"The automaker cut prices across the board for its offerings in China, with the entry-level Model 3 sedan dropping by nearly 5% to 279,000 yuan, and the entry level Model Y SUV’s price coming down by 9% to 316,000 yuan"
In china tesla is selling model 3 at $38413.88 and model Y at $43508 USD . At the same time in US they are selling model 3 at $47000 USD and model Y at $66000 USD.
Tesla seems to be taking their US customers for a ride for long while now.
My FiL was claiming that Musk taking ownership of Twitter was a mechanism for securing his continued access to the marketing platform. Basically, an alternative to the advertising spending you're describing.
Tesla's high car prices and their high stock price are a result of its high margins. Period.
Consumers are willing to pay these high margins because no other car manufacturers are mass producing products like Teslas (except for a few startups, whose products are not yet widely available).
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-cuts-prices-in-china-on-concern-over-softening-demand-153018911.html - Tesla cuts prices in China on concern over softening demandI expect they have higher costs when making cars in the USA.
Interesting bit in the the story for me is
"The automaker cut prices across the board for its offerings in China, with the entry-level Model 3 sedan dropping by nearly 5% to 279,000 yuan, and the entry level Model Y SUV’s price coming down by 9% to 316,000 yuan"
In china tesla is selling model 3 at $38413.88 and model Y at $43508 USD . At the same time in US they are selling model 3 at $47000 USD and model Y at $66000 USD.
Tesla seems to be taking their US customers for a ride for long while now.
Costs may be little higher but not by much. Nah, tesla is raising prices on all vehicles they sell in US just because they can. They made a decision to profit from US while expanding aggressively china.
When introduced model 3 base was 37K and model Y was 42K and those prices are still close to what they sell in china. Even more astonishing is current price difference on M3 and MY. M3 and MY are almost the same cars with few body changes.
Anyone who buys a tesla in north America at current prices is a sucker. We need more competition in US and its on its way.
Anyone who buys a tesla in north America at current prices is a sucker. We need more competition in US and its on its way.
Anyone who buys a tesla in north America at current prices is a sucker. We need more competition in US and its on its way.
Based on the prices displayed on Teslas' US webiste the price for a Model Y Long Rage with no extras added is currently around 10.000 USD higher than what I can buy it for here in Norway (where generally everything is more expensive than in the US). This includes some local fees (bit over 1000 USD) and im not entirely sure if the price also includes some VAT as the rules are about to be changed over here. I think its without VAT but not 100% on that.
The exact difference when converting to USD will vary a bit based on current exchange rate that moves around quite a bit and it generally takes some time and a rather significant movement before Tesla does a price adjustment for that reason.
Tesla's high car prices and their high stock price are a result of its high margins. Period.
Consumers are willing to pay these high margins because no other car manufacturers are mass producing products like Teslas (except for a few startups, whose products are not yet widely available).
To me, that's remarkably shaky ground. Most of the world's auto manufacturers are rolling out Tesla-like vehicles in the next couple of years. Tesla will eventually be forced to spend money on marketing, like their competitors are doing, and they will have to lower prices / margins to meet the competition. Meanwhile, Tesla's sales of regulatory credits will diminish.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/04/25/heres-the-secret-behind-teslas-industry-leading-ma/ (https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/04/25/heres-the-secret-behind-teslas-industry-leading-ma/)
Tesla's high car prices and their high stock price are a result of its high margins. Period.
Consumers are willing to pay these high margins because no other car manufacturers are mass producing products like Teslas (except for a few startups, whose products are not yet widely available).
To me, that's remarkably shaky ground. Most of the world's auto manufacturers are rolling out Tesla-like vehicles in the next couple of years. Tesla will eventually be forced to spend money on marketing, like their competitors are doing, and they will have to lower prices / margins to meet the competition. Meanwhile, Tesla's sales of regulatory credits will diminish.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/04/25/heres-the-secret-behind-teslas-industry-leading-ma/ (https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/04/25/heres-the-secret-behind-teslas-industry-leading-ma/)
Way off on most of this. First, consumers are willing to pay a premium because Tesla offers the best value proposition (combination of price-performance/engineering-range). The supercharging network, top safety marks, software advantage, and over-the-air updates and upgrades are also key differentiators. Tesla customers also don’t have to deal with the horrible dealership experience.
There is no real indication that competition is coming any time soon for Tesla. Competitors keep announcing plans and prototypes, but few EVs have reached mass production. The whole, “competition is coming” narrative is based on the false assumption that Ford, GM, Tesla, etc are competing for. a fixed number of EV customers. When in fact the number of EV customers is increasing rapidly and eating into the ICE portion of the pie. It’s not a zero sum game.
Another error in the “competition is coming” narrative is that legacy auto will have sufficient battery supply to mass produce their EVs. Tesla has a huge head start in procuring its battery supply and in manufacturing their own batteries (4680 cell ramp currently underway in Austin). You can’t make EVs without batterie and Tesla’s supply will dwarf the supply of legacy auto for at least the next 5 years as they play catchup.
The “competition is coming” narrative also ignores that GM, Ford, Toyota, VW, etc. will somehow have to wind down their ICE manufacturing (sales already declining), while simultaneously ramping up their EV divisions. Each requires a unique and separate work force. So, they will eat into their profit center while spending billions to create and ramp their EV infrastructure, hiring, training, R&D and marketing for EVs. Ford and GM already have massive debt on their balance sheets, whereas Tesla is printing money and sitting on ~19 billion in cash and virtually no debt. I wish them well, but half of them will likely go belly-up without another auto bailout.
Lastly, because Tesla has close to 30% margins on auto and the advantage of scale compared to “competitors”, Tesla can easily lower prices while remaining profitable and undercut the competition that will have slim margins until they reach mass production (1 million +/yr).
The competition is here but it's not in the US or Europe.
Full credit to Tesla for lighting a fire under the legacy automaker's asses.
But yeah, I'd buy a $25k Bolt or a $30k Leaf before a $47k Tesla. They're going to have to make some lower priced cars if they want to compete for the majority of the US auto market (of course, their market cap would indicate they already do).
-W
Full credit to Tesla for lighting a fire under the legacy automaker's asses.
But yeah, I'd buy a $25k Bolt or a $30k Leaf before a $47k Tesla. They're going to have to make some lower priced cars if they want to compete for the majority of the US auto market (of course, their market cap would indicate they already do).
-W
To the people who are negative on Tesla, did you listen to the earnings calls? You can find answers to all your questions there. You are not going to have an accurate view if you don't have the latest data.
To the people who are negative on Tesla, did you listen to the earnings calls? You can find answers to all your questions there. You are not going to have an accurate view if you don't have the latest data.I've listened to earnings calls where the company is nearly broke, and management puts on a brave face and talks about their ambitions for the future of the company, yada yada .... and then they file bankruptcy two weeks later - a bankruptcy the executives obviously took a break from working on to do the earnings call.
Vaporware is often announced months or years before its purported release, with few details about its development being released. Developers have been accused of intentionally promoting vaporware to keep customers from switching to competing products that offer more features.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware)
To the people who are negative on Tesla, did you listen to the earnings calls? You can find answers to all your questions there. You are not going to have an accurate view if you don't have the latest data.
To the people who are negative on Tesla, did you listen to the earnings calls? You can find answers to all your questions there. You are not going to have an accurate view if you don't have the latest data.I've listened to earnings calls where the company is nearly broke, and management puts on a brave face and talks about their ambitions for the future of the company, yada yada .... and then they file bankruptcy two weeks later - a bankruptcy the executives obviously took a break from working on to do the earnings call.
Still, financial reports alone don't explain everything an investor needs to know. With most companies, one can at least get insights about progress toward technical milestones, challenges, or new product rollouts, but Tesla is very different in this respect. Tesla routinely announces new products and rollout plans that never happen, or take many years to happen. If you hear Tesla say "we're making great progress toward mass-production of the cybertruck and semi" you don't actually know what that means in terms of the when, the how much, or the definition of progress. In the context of a Toyota or GM earnings call, that statement would have a different meaning, because they'd generally be talking about the next year's products or capacities.
Will the streets be filled with cybertrucks and Tesla semis next year? Maybe or maybe not. But I do know that Tesla is single-handedly responsible for expanding the definition of "vaporware" to include cars.QuoteVaporware is often announced months or years before its purported release, with few details about its development being released. Developers have been accused of intentionally promoting vaporware to keep customers from switching to competing products that offer more features.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware)
Musk's genius has been to tap into venture capital funding to start a car manufacturer while simultaneously keeping potential competitors in the BEV market from investing in new products through the vaporware strategy, which worked like a charm in his old industry of software. The strategy also has a way of pulling in investment capital from people who are used to earnings calls that are not merely stock pitches.
To the people who are negative on Tesla, did you listen to the earnings calls? You can find answers to all your questions there. You are not going to have an accurate view if you don't have the latest data.
Just out today Reuters: Tesla faces U.S. criminal probe over self-driving claims (https://www.reuters.com/legal/exclusive-tesla-faces-us-criminal-probe-over-self-driving-claims-sources-2022-10-26/)
Just out today Reuters: Tesla faces U.S. criminal probe over self-driving claims (https://www.reuters.com/legal/exclusive-tesla-faces-us-criminal-probe-over-self-driving-claims-sources-2022-10-26/)
You fell for the FUD. This is old rehashed news, repackaged for clicks. There is an “investigation”, that’s been ongoing for at least a year. It has yielded no charges and is very unlikely to.
Key point from the article.
However, the company also has explicitly warned drivers that they must keep their hands on the wheel and maintain control of their vehicles while using Autopilot.
The Tesla technology is designed to assist with steering, braking, speed and lane changes but its features “do not make the vehicle autonomous,” the company says on its website.
Such warnings could complicate any case the Justice Department might wish to bring, the sources said.
Translation - this whole thing is going nowhere and likely politically motivated.
I’ve saw a Ford or Chevy commercial, can’t remember which, touting their driver assist software (Super Cruise), in which the driver in the commercial is not touching the wheel while the car is in motion. Is Ford or Chevy under investigation? Aren’t they misleading customers?
Tesla is clear, drivers have to keep their hands on the wheel. If they take their hands off the wheel for more than a few seconds the car will sound an alarm and prompt the driver to retake the wheel. Repeated abuse has resulted in drivers losing access to these autopilot features.
There’s no cure for human stupidity and autonomous features save way more lives than the few lost to abuse and stupidity. I could set cruise control and put my fee up on the dash. Is it the car manufacturer’s fault if I then get in an accident?
To the people who are negative on Tesla, did you listen to the earnings calls? You can find answers to all your questions there. You are not going to have an accurate view if you don't have the latest data.
LOL. I'm not spending my time listening to Tesla earnings calls. Jesus. I'm FI (and didn't get here by listening to earnings calls or trying to pick stocks) and don't give a crap.
I hope they succeed. I'm just saying that in the world of capitalism, if there's money to be made, there will be competition. A lot of it.
-W
To the people who are negative on Tesla, did you listen to the earnings calls? You can find answers to all your questions there. You are not going to have an accurate view if you don't have the latest data.
Markets are forward looking, earnings calls are backwards looking. I don't care what happened last quarter at Tesla, I care about how the criminal probe resolves in the future.
To the people who are negative on Tesla, did you listen to the earnings calls? You can find answers to all your questions there. You are not going to have an accurate view if you don't have the latest data.
The last one where Musk hinted at weakening sales in China?
To the people who are negative on Tesla, did you listen to the earnings calls? You can find answers to all your questions there. You are not going to have an accurate view if you don't have the latest data.
Markets are forward looking, earnings calls are backwards looking. I don't care what happened last quarter at Tesla, I care about how the criminal probe resolves in the future.
The main purpose of an earnings call is not to discuss the results. The real purpose is to discuss future plans, and what will happen if various scenarios happen. The fact is you don't have the latest info.
A few of posters here have already told you the market is big enough for multiple car companies. In fact, we need many car companies make EVs. Tesla alone isn't enough. GM building more EV's is welcome and expected(if they don't fail and get bailed out again which is a possibility).
Anyway, FI or not is irrelevant. You don't have the latest information. It's like discussing a movie with friends without first seeing the movie.
What you've been saying is that Tesla will be much smaller because they'll lose market share to other car companies, especially the car companies in China.
Tesla's market share will become smaller. That's just math. It doesn't mean the company or its stock price will shrink.
I feel that you have a hidden agenda. Do you have positions in one of the Chinese car companies?
The market cap is not determined like you described, not to mentioned the legacy companies have all sorts of obstacles(high margin ICE sales and repairs going away, low or negative margin EVs coming online, huge debts, dealerships cooperation, unions, supply-chain, etc).
If you look at Tesla earnings and their projected earnings from selling the cars alone(the stock market is forwarding looking afterall), the market cap is justified. What kind of multiple is fair for a fast growing company like Tesla?
btw - "They haven't made any progress to go down-market" - most companies are not standing still. Companies are always working on the next version. This is discussed in their earnings call.
Just out today Reuters: Tesla faces U.S. criminal probe over self-driving claims (https://www.reuters.com/legal/exclusive-tesla-faces-us-criminal-probe-over-self-driving-claims-sources-2022-10-26/)
You fell for the FUD. This is old rehashed news, repackaged for clicks. There is an “investigation”, that’s been ongoing for at least a year. It has yielded no charges and is very unlikely to.
Key point from the article.
However, the company also has explicitly warned drivers that they must keep their hands on the wheel and maintain control of their vehicles while using Autopilot.
The Tesla technology is designed to assist with steering, braking, speed and lane changes but its features “do not make the vehicle autonomous,” the company says on its website.
Such warnings could complicate any case the Justice Department might wish to bring, the sources said.
Translation - this whole thing is going nowhere and likely politically motivated.
I’ve saw a Ford or Chevy commercial, can’t remember which, touting their driver assist software (Super Cruise), in which the driver in the commercial is not touching the wheel while the car is in motion. Is Ford or Chevy under investigation? Aren’t they misleading customers?
Tesla is clear, drivers have to keep their hands on the wheel. If they take their hands off the wheel for more than a few seconds the car will sound an alarm and prompt the driver to retake the wheel. Repeated abuse has resulted in drivers losing access to these autopilot features.
There’s no cure for human stupidity and autonomous features save way more lives than the few lost to abuse and stupidity. I could set cruise control and put my fee up on the dash. Is it the car manufacturer’s fault if I then get in an accident?
Also from the article: "A video currently on the company’s website says: 'The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself.'" I hope it goes to trial.
New York
CNN Business
—
Elon Musk has completed his $44 billion deal to buy Twitter, a source familiar with the deal told CNN Thursday, putting the world’s richest man in charge of one of the world’s most influential social media platforms.
Musk fired CEO Parag Agrawal and two other executives, according to two people familiar with the decision. Twitter declined to comment.
Another year or two? GM has been dawdling on Bolt since before Model 3 came out.The competition is here but it's not in the US or Europe.
Give it another year or two. CNN: The Chevy Bolt’s huge sales prove America is craving a cheap electric car (https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/26/business/chevrolet-bolt-sales/index.html). This is the current pre-Ultium model.
The Twitter mess has hurt Tesla (TSLA) investors in the past few weeks. Shares of Elon Musk's electric car giant have tumbled since he took over the social media app and seemingly diverted much of his attention to the little blue bird. One prominent Tesla analyst has grown tired of the drama.
Dan Ives, a prominent, widely quoted analyst with Wedbush Securities, has historically been a big fan of Musk and prominent supporter of Tesla stock. But Ives said in a report Thursday that he was removing Tesla from his list of best ideas because Twitter had turned into an "albatross" for Musk.
He wrote that it could be "a very nervous few months ahead for Tesla investors as they remain the ones that have been punched again and again by the Musk Twitter antics." He added that "the stock now is deep in the investor penalty box."
Ives also said that the Twitter saga is "a dark comedy show" and that "Musk has essentially tarnished the Tesla story." He worries that this "ongoing Twitter train wreck disaster" could "potentially impact the Tesla brand."
Ives is keeping his "outperform" rating on Tesla stock for now, but he cut his price target from $300 to $250. (Tesla is now trading around $188 following a 6% pop Thursday.) And Ives noted the "Musk overhang...gets worse by the day."
I love these prices. 50x trailing 12 month EPS. Q4 will compress that to 32x while growing at 50%/year in production and earnings are growing even faster. Tesla Semi deliveries start in a couple of weeks. Cybertruck is in tooling. The company and Elon are running at really HIGH negativity right now in the media that will fade over time like everything does. Anyway, I think 2023 earnings will be somewhere around $9/share so current Forward EPS of 20 for my numbers. Even Yahoo Finance has a Forward PE of 35 which is wild. Their forecasts are starting to make more sense. It would be great if Elon would stop doing Elon things and hire Amazon's PR team (90x EPS on 20% growth) because TSLA would be a monster, but we'll just have to leave it to the long term scale of printing cash and profits with high growth instead of short term noise.
GM doesn't expect to be profitable on its EV program until 2025. That's a long time frame for an established OEM and investors at this point in this decade. It's not 2010s anymore. Rivian could beat GM to profitability. That's wild.
Elon Musk's Successor As Tesla CEO: Analyst Names Apple, Ex-Volkswagen Execs Among Lead Contenders
7:17 am ET November 18, 2022 (Benzinga) Print
Tesla Inc. (NASDAQ: TSLA) shares came under selling pressure on Thursday after board member word got around that a succession plan for CEO Elon Musk is in the works. Tesla bulls dismissed the development as "good corporate governance" and said a change at the helm may not happen any time soon. Specifically, Loup Funds Managing Partner Gene Munster said a new CEO announcement could be two to three years away.
The venture capitalist on Thursday put forward a list of potential replacements for Musk, taking into account both internal and external candidates. The list has been arranged in the order of probability, he added.
1. Herbert Deiss: The former CEO of German automaker Volkswagen AG (OTC: VWAGY), Deiss is the most probable successor from the list of seven candidates, Munster said. Two things working in his favor are his quest toward rapid electrification even while he was at the German automaker, and the respect he commands from Musk.
2. J.B. Straubel: Straubel, the CEO and founder of Redwood Materials and co-founder of Tesla, is strong when it comes to batteries — an important component of electric vehicles — Munster said. Additionally, he has a “level-headed business approach and a steady-handed personality” — characteristic traits that appeal to investors, Munster added.
Munster brought up the possibility of Tesla acquiring Redwood and Straubel taking over as CEO. Despite leaving Tesla, he serves as an advisor to the EV maker and remains on favorable terms with Musk, the Loup Funds co-founder said.
I love these prices. ...
I love these prices. ...
Stand by to love even better prices. There is speculation the stock could sink as low as $100/share, which would still value it at something like 7X the market cap of GM.
I love these prices. ...
Stand by to love even better prices. There is speculation the stock could sink as low as $100/share, which would still value it at something like 7X the market cap of GM.
Sounds good! $100/share would be 11x 2023 earnings, 5x 2024 earnings and 4x 2025 earnings for my models. Deep value that would play out in the long term vs short term. GM makes less profit than Tesla today with 3x the revenue. What will GMs earnings be next year? Probably less than this year. I don't model GM. It has a horrendous balance sheet and has a massive undertaking in front of it regarding capex and op ex spend for transitioning it's ICE production to EV. Totally possible it might be a good investment later in the decade, but I don't believe GM has any significant top line growth in it and massive execution risk for the next 3-5 years.
I'm personally rooting for Twitter to collapse, forcing Musk to sell a ton of Tesla stock (maybe even getting him booted as CEO?), and dropping the price a bunch.
I think at this point Musk walking off into the sunset would be a good thing for both the company and humanity.
Then I'd actually consider buying an individual stock for the first time ever.
-W
I'm personally rooting for Twitter to collapse, forcing Musk to sell a ton of Tesla stock (maybe even getting him booted as CEO?), and dropping the price a bunch.
I think at this point Musk walking off into the sunset would be a good thing for both the company and humanity.
Then I'd actually consider buying an individual stock for the first time ever.
-W
If they do a less fancy/expensive EV I'd consider it. But that Bolt (we already have a Leaf) is just too much of a good deal to even consider Tesla for us right now.
-W
I don't have any "fun money" invested outside of index funds/bonds, etc. If I ever do, I think it would have to be Tesla. I have a hard time seeing how they don't grow into the biggest and most profitable company we've ever seen. Their lead over other companies seems insurmountable for the foreseeable future. Of course, I do own TSLA in my index funds. But I can't see how adding some additional shares could possibly be a bad idea over a 5-10 year time horizon.
In fact, I was considering buying a few shares today but sort of lousy timing considering todays surge haha.
The spring is being wound tight.
The spring is being wound tight.
Agreed
I think the TSLA stock price the last few weeks offered the best value proposition in the companies history since it started mass production. I added some shares on Monday. None of the noise matters in the long run and that includes Twitter. Tesla is growing 40-50% per year and has a forward looking PE in the neighborhood or 25-30. Tesla will exit 2022 with a run rate >2 million vehicles a year and industry leading margins. And all that doesn’t even count the semi truck (first deliveries Dec 1) or the Cybertruck (deliveries start in 23Q1). The spring is being wound tight.
Tesla will exit 2022 with a run rate >2 million vehicles a year and industry leading margins. And all that doesn’t even count the semi truck (first deliveries Dec 1) or the Cybertruck (deliveries start in 23Q1). The spring is being wound tight.
Tesla will exit 2022 with a run rate >2 million vehicles a year and industry leading margins. And all that doesn’t even count the semi truck (first deliveries Dec 1) or the Cybertruck (deliveries start in 23Q1). The spring is being wound tight.
Given the declining situation in China, I don't see how Tesla can improve deliveries from 114k/month to 166k/quarter. The semi truck deliveries will be negligible this quarter but, if the semi impresses Pepsi, the order book will explode.
With Tesla's history of overpromising, though, I expect the semi delivery will be pushed to Q1.
I think the TSLA stock price the last few weeks offered the best value proposition in the companies history since it started mass production. I added some shares on Monday. None of the noise matters in the long run and that includes Twitter. Tesla is growing 40-50% per year and has a forward looking PE in the neighborhood or 25-30. Tesla will exit 2022 with a run rate >2 million vehicles a year and industry leading margins. And all that doesn’t even count the semi truck (first deliveries Dec 1) or the Cybertruck (deliveries start in 23Q1). The spring is being wound tight.
Are you loading up like crazy? How much?
Tesla will exit 2022 with a run rate >2 million vehicles a year and industry leading margins. And all that doesn’t even count the semi truck (first deliveries Dec 1) or the Cybertruck (deliveries start in 23Q1). The spring is being wound tight.
Given the declining situation in China, I don't see how Tesla can improve deliveries from 114k/month to 166k/quarter. The semi truck deliveries will be negligible this quarter but, if the semi impresses Pepsi, the order book will explode.
With Tesla's history of overpromising, though, I expect the semi delivery will be pushed to Q1.
There is no actual evidence of declining sales in China.
Tesla Inc. China deliveries fell in October after reaching a record high in September, underscoring the automaker’s recent price cut to boost sales.(bolded)
Elon Musk’s electric car pioneer shipped 71,704 cars from its Shanghai plant, according to a statement from China’s Passenger Car Association published Friday. That’s up from a year ago, but down from a record high of 83,135 reached in September.
Folks have been claiming Tesla has hit a demand cliff for years now and have been proven horribly wrong for years. Someday, Tesla demand will peak, its inevitable, but that won’t happen as long as as ICE market share is shifting to EV market share. There will be regional fluctuations based on economic and regulatory factors, but worldwide demand for Tesla is going to increase for the foreseeable future.
I thought they said during the latest earning call that Cybertruck production starts mid-year 2023 with production volume at end of 2023?
I think the TSLA stock price the last few weeks offered the best value proposition in the companies history since it started mass production. I added some shares on Monday. None of the noise matters in the long run and that includes Twitter. Tesla is growing 40-50% per year and has a forward looking PE in the neighborhood or 25-30. Tesla will exit 2022 with a run rate >2 million vehicles a year and industry leading margins. And all that doesn’t even count the semi truck (first deliveries Dec 1) or the Cybertruck (deliveries start in 23Q1). The spring is being wound tight.
I thought they said during the latest earning call that Cybertruck production starts mid-year 2023 with production volume at end of 2023?
I think the TSLA stock price the last few weeks offered the best value proposition in the companies history since it started mass production. I added some shares on Monday. None of the noise matters in the long run and that includes Twitter. Tesla is growing 40-50% per year and has a forward looking PE in the neighborhood or 25-30. Tesla will exit 2022 with a run rate >2 million vehicles a year and industry leading margins. And all that doesn’t even count the semi truck (first deliveries Dec 1) or the Cybertruck (deliveries start in 23Q1). The spring is being wound tight.
Tesla will exit 2022 with a run rate >2 million vehicles a year and industry leading margins. And all that doesn’t even count the semi truck (first deliveries Dec 1) or the Cybertruck (deliveries start in 23Q1). The spring is being wound tight.
Given the declining situation in China, I don't see how Tesla can improve deliveries from 114k/month to 166k/quarter. The semi truck deliveries will be negligible this quarter but, if the semi impresses Pepsi, the order book will explode.
With Tesla's history of overpromising, though, I expect the semi delivery will be pushed to Q1.
There is no actual evidence of declining sales in China.
Bloomberg notes declining deliveries from the Shanghai plant. I mean, Beijing is once again a ghost town. How could sales be increasing with China's bizarre covid strategy?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-03/tesla-s-china-deliveries-fall-in-october-from-a-record-highQuote from: bloombergTesla Inc. China deliveries fell in October after reaching a record high in September, underscoring the automaker’s recent price cut to boost sales.(bolded)
Elon Musk’s electric car pioneer shipped 71,704 cars from its Shanghai plant, according to a statement from China’s Passenger Car Association published Friday. That’s up from a year ago, but down from a record high of 83,135 reached in September.QuoteFolks have been claiming Tesla has hit a demand cliff for years now and have been proven horribly wrong for years. Someday, Tesla demand will peak, its inevitable, but that won’t happen as long as as ICE market share is shifting to EV market share. There will be regional fluctuations based on economic and regulatory factors, but worldwide demand for Tesla is going to increase for the foreseeable future.
Well, of course sales will increase as the ICE market decreases. What matters, though, is whether Tesla can continue to meet 40-50% yoy growth when facing increased competition and decreased (or fulfilled) demand for luxury and premium cars.
Tesla will exit 2022 with a run rate >2 million vehicles a year and industry leading margins. And all that doesn’t even count the semi truck (first deliveries Dec 1) or the Cybertruck (deliveries start in 23Q1). The spring is being wound tight.
Given the declining situation in China, I don't see how Tesla can improve deliveries from 114k/month to 166k/quarter. The semi truck deliveries will be negligible this quarter but, if the semi impresses Pepsi, the order book will explode.
With Tesla's history of overpromising, though, I expect the semi delivery will be pushed to Q1.
There is no actual evidence of declining sales in China.
Bloomberg notes declining deliveries from the Shanghai plant. I mean, Beijing is once again a ghost town. How could sales be increasing with China's bizarre covid strategy?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-03/tesla-s-china-deliveries-fall-in-october-from-a-record-highQuote from: bloombergTesla Inc. China deliveries fell in October after reaching a record high in September, underscoring the automaker’s recent price cut to boost sales.(bolded)
Elon Musk’s electric car pioneer shipped 71,704 cars from its Shanghai plant, according to a statement from China’s Passenger Car Association published Friday. That’s up from a year ago, but down from a record high of 83,135 reached in September.QuoteFolks have been claiming Tesla has hit a demand cliff for years now and have been proven horribly wrong for years. Someday, Tesla demand will peak, its inevitable, but that won’t happen as long as as ICE market share is shifting to EV market share. There will be regional fluctuations based on economic and regulatory factors, but worldwide demand for Tesla is going to increase for the foreseeable future.
Well, of course sales will increase as the ICE market decreases. What matters, though, is whether Tesla can continue to meet 40-50% yoy growth when facing increased competition and decreased (or fulfilled) demand for luxury and premium cars.
Well, you’ve been spot on about Tesla over the years and up to this point :)
I guess if you keep predicting THIS is the year Tesla fails to grow 40-50% you’ll eventually be right. You’ll also be about as useful as a broken clock.
Not that you’ll listen, but you can’t gauge Chia demand by looking at month to month sales. Some months Tesla ships China production abroad and some months they focus on the domestic market. I’ll believe there is a China demand problem with China sales go down QoQ. That would be discouraging, but the only thing that really matters is global sales and any temporary stagnation in China market can be taken up by Europe, NA, Australia, SE Asia, etc. Tesla can also expand to new markets, such as India and South America. Tesla can also start marketing or reduce prices, so that they’re only making unheard of 25% margins instead of unheard of 30% margins. Not to mention that US buyers will once again qualify for $7500 federal credit starting Jan 1. Tesla will be globally supply constrained for several years to come. The “competition” can’t even get out of the starting gates.
Not that you’ll listen, but you can’t gauge Chia demand by looking at month to month sales. Some months Tesla ships China production abroad and some months they focus on the domestic market. I’ll believe there is a China demand problem when China sales go down QoQ. That would be discouraging, but the only thing that really matters is global sales. Any temporary stagnation in China market can be taken up by Europe, NA, Australia, SE Asia, etc. Tesla can also expand to new markets, such as India and South America. Tesla can also start marketing or reduce prices, so that they’re only making unheard of 25% margins instead of unheard of 30% margins. Not to mention that US buyers will once again qualify for $7500 federal credit starting Jan 1. Tesla will be globally supply constrained for several years to come.
In October, Tesla produced 87,706 Model 3s and Model Ys in Shanghai but delivered 71,704 vehicles, leaving a gap of 16,002 China-made cars in inventory, according to data from China Merchants Bank International (CMBI).(bolded)
That was the biggest gap between production and sales since Tesla opened its Shanghai Gigfactory in late 2019, CMBI data showed.
Tesla has officially abandoned its effort to enter the Indian market and even started to reassign local employees. The automaker couldn’t get the government to change its mind on high import tariffs for foreign electric vehicles.
The “competition” can’t even get out of the starting gates.
Semi deliveries event is Dec 1. Invitations are already in the hands of many investors so it’s happening. Looking forward to it. Hoping to see a production cybertruck as well since the line is in tooling and hiring for production is in full swing.
I’d suggest reading up on the Semi some. It’s been known to be class 8 for some time. Frito Lay and Pepsi have already had mega chargers installed at locations that add 400 miles in 30 min. 500 mile range fully loaded at the EV truck limit of 81,000 pounds.
Level 4 driving is coming in20172019202120222023 too. :) I'll believe a class 8 semi when I see it (which might well be this week.)
Investors are thinking Tesla is being conservative in their timing estimate? Tesla is kind of known for being the opposite... hahaI thought they said during the latest earning call that Cybertruck production starts mid-year 2023 with production volume at end of 2023?
I think the TSLA stock price the last few weeks offered the best value proposition in the companies history since it started mass production. I added some shares on Monday. None of the noise matters in the long run and that includes Twitter. Tesla is growing 40-50% per year and has a forward looking PE in the neighborhood or 25-30. Tesla will exit 2022 with a run rate >2 million vehicles a year and industry leading margins. And all that doesn’t even count the semi truck (first deliveries Dec 1) or the Cybertruck (deliveries start in 23Q1). The spring is being wound tight.
Yeah, that’s company guidance. Investors are optimistic there’s some sandbagging involved with that since the Gigapress for it shipped from Idra and Tesla is hiring many people for the production line. Either way is fine long term.
Not that you’ll listen, but you can’t gauge Chia demand by looking at month to month sales. Some months Tesla ships China production abroad and some months they focus on the domestic market. I’ll believe there is a China demand problem when China sales go down QoQ. That would be discouraging, but the only thing that really matters is global sales. Any temporary stagnation in China market can be taken up by Europe, NA, Australia, SE Asia, etc. Tesla can also expand to new markets, such as India and South America. Tesla can also start marketing or reduce prices, so that they’re only making unheard of 25% margins instead of unheard of 30% margins. Not to mention that US buyers will once again qualify for $7500 federal credit starting Jan 1. Tesla will be globally supply constrained for several years to come.
It stands to reason that Tesla, like all the auto manufacturers, will get caught in the probable recession. Anyone who thinks otherwise might be blinded by the magical Cybertrucks in the sky. ;-)Quote from: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-shanghai-adds-inventory-highest-rate-ever-october-brokerage-data-2022-11-09In October, Tesla produced 87,706 Model 3s and Model Ys in Shanghai but delivered 71,704 vehicles, leaving a gap of 16,002 China-made cars in inventory, according to data from China Merchants Bank International (CMBI).(bolded)
That was the biggest gap between production and sales since Tesla opened its Shanghai Gigfactory in late 2019, CMBI data showed.
As for India, Tesla pulled out of the Indian market in May. India is a protectionist market that's hard to crack. Ask Walmart.Quote from: https://electrek.co/2022/05/13/tesla-abandons-plans-enter-indian-marketTesla has officially abandoned its effort to enter the Indian market and even started to reassign local employees. The automaker couldn’t get the government to change its mind on high import tariffs for foreign electric vehicles.QuoteThe “competition” can’t even get out of the starting gates.
The main competition for Tesla is BYD, who has started to sell in India and is currently outselling them in China, Tesla's #2 market. Remember the Tesla-Hertz deal? BYD inked a similar deal with Sixt in Europe.
BYD eventually overtaking Tesla production numbers shouldn't be a surprise either. Annual car sales in China dwarf any other country and populism will win the day there. They made it a national mission to make a decent ball point pen; there's no way they'll concede the EV title to a US company.
I’d suggest reading up on the Semi some. It’s been known to be class 8 for some time. Frito Lay and Pepsi have already had mega chargers installed at locations that add 400 miles in 30 min. 500 mile range fully loaded at the EV truck limit of 81,000 pounds.
Level 4 driving is coming in20172019202120222023 too. :) I'll believe a class 8 semi when I see it (which might well be this week.)
Are there any other mega chargers other than at Pepsi's Modesto and Indio plants (and Tesla)? If not, that kinda proves my point. It's an important first step but it's a far cry from mega charging a dozen trucks at a Flying J's in Beaver, UT for the LA-Denver haul.
You keep bringing up BYD like BYD and Tesla are in some sort of winner take all competition to the death.
BYD is the only other pure EV startup managing to turn a profit, though a modest profit compared to Tesla. Every legacy auto is selling their EVs at a loss and will continue to do so until they reach mass production (annually) in the six or seven figure range.
Regardless, the rapidly growing EV pie is more than big enough for BYD and Tesla to both be wildly successful and profitable going forward.
You keep bringing up BYD like BYD and Tesla are in some sort of winner take all competition to the death.
I keep bringing up BYD because you keep claiming that Tesla has no serious competition. They do.QuoteBYD is the only other pure EV startup managing to turn a profit, though a modest profit compared to Tesla. Every legacy auto is selling their EVs at a loss and will continue to do so until they reach mass production (annually) in the six or seven figure range.
BYD is not a pure EV startup. It is a legacy car manufacturer and switched over to only EVs this year.QuoteRegardless, the rapidly growing EV pie is more than big enough for BYD and Tesla to both be wildly successful and profitable going forward.
No one has denied this.
You keep bringing up BYD like BYD and Tesla are in some sort of winner take all competition to the death.
I keep bringing up BYD because you keep claiming that Tesla has no serious competition. They do.QuoteBYD is the only other pure EV startup managing to turn a profit, though a modest profit compared to Tesla. Every legacy auto is selling their EVs at a loss and will continue to do so until they reach mass production (annually) in the six or seven figure range.
BYD is not a pure EV startup. It is a legacy car manufacturer and switched over to only EVs this year.QuoteRegardless, the rapidly growing EV pie is more than big enough for BYD and Tesla to both be wildly successful and profitable going forward.
No one has denied this.
And, you keep saying BYD is Tesla’s competition when they don’t “compete” in the same vehicle classes or many of the same markets. In reality, BYD and Tesla are not competing against each other, they are competing against legacy ICE and both are winning. Very few people, a minuscule fraction of the EV market are actually choosing between a Tesla vehicle and a BYD vehicle. So, how is BYD “serious competition” as you put it?
And if you haven't denied that Tesla and BYD can both be wildly successful, why do you consistently point to BYD as the competition that will keep Tesla from growing 40-50% YOY going forward. That’s where this all started. Seems to me you’re either walking this back or talking out both sides of your mouth.
BEV companies are not competing against each other for BEV customers, they are competing against ICE mfgs for new BEV owners.
BYD is competing for traditional ICE compact coupes and sedans which are low margin, low cost vehicles.
Tesla is competing for traditional ICE intermediate and full size sedan and SUVs that are high margin and premium pricing. They don't compete against each other.
The pool of new BEV customers is growing faster than people can count. Any EV mfg that is not selling on a waiting list without advertising should do themselves a favor and just shut down, they are done. Global BEV market share is still less than 10% of all vehicle sales. All BEV mfg can grow BEV sales at 50% per year for a number of years before reaching a saturation point. The catch is that traditional mfg are not necessarily growing top or bottom line at 50% per year because they are just swapping ICE owners with BEV owners.
BEV companies are not competing against each other for BEV customers, they are competing against ICE mfgs for new BEV owners.
BYD is competing for traditional ICE compact coupes and sedans which are low margin, low cost vehicles.
Tesla is competing for traditional ICE intermediate and full size sedan and SUVs that are high margin and premium pricing. They don't compete against each other.
The pool of new BEV customers is growing faster than people can count. Any EV mfg that is not selling on a waiting list without advertising should do themselves a favor and just shut down, they are done. Global BEV market share is still less than 10% of all vehicle sales. All BEV mfg can grow BEV sales at 50% per year for a number of years before reaching a saturation point. The catch is that traditional mfg are not necessarily growing top or bottom line at 50% per year because they are just swapping ICE owners with BEV owners.
I'm confused now. Please help.
1) Tesla is not competing against a legacy and now pure EV company because most of BYD's cars are not semi/luxury cars.
2) Tesla is competing against legacy ICE car companies that are (mostly) still selling ICE cars.
It doesn't seem like Ford, GM, Stellantis, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan meet both rules. They have some semi/luxury cars but no one would call them a premium car manufacturer. Would you agree?
Tesla will exit 2022 with a run rate >2 million vehicles a year and industry leading margins. And all that doesn’t even count the semi truck (first deliveries Dec 1) or the Cybertruck (deliveries start in 23Q1). The spring is being wound tight.
Given the declining situation in China, I don't see how Tesla can improve deliveries from 114k/month to 166k/quarter. The semi truck deliveries will be negligible this quarter but, if the semi impresses Pepsi, the order book will explode.
With Tesla's history of overpromising, though, I expect the semi delivery will be pushed to Q1.
There is no actual evidence of declining sales in China.
Bloomberg notes declining deliveries from the Shanghai plant. I mean, Beijing is once again a ghost town. How could sales be increasing with China's bizarre covid strategy?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-03/tesla-s-china-deliveries-fall-in-october-from-a-record-highQuote from: bloombergTesla Inc. China deliveries fell in October after reaching a record high in September, underscoring the automaker’s recent price cut to boost sales.(bolded)
Elon Musk’s electric car pioneer shipped 71,704 cars from its Shanghai plant, according to a statement from China’s Passenger Car Association published Friday. That’s up from a year ago, but down from a record high of 83,135 reached in September.QuoteFolks have been claiming Tesla has hit a demand cliff for years now and have been proven horribly wrong for years. Someday, Tesla demand will peak, its inevitable, but that won’t happen as long as as ICE market share is shifting to EV market share. There will be regional fluctuations based on economic and regulatory factors, but worldwide demand for Tesla is going to increase for the foreseeable future.
Well, of course sales will increase as the ICE market decreases. What matters, though, is whether Tesla can continue to meet 40-50% yoy growth when facing increased competition and decreased (or fulfilled) demand for luxury and premium cars.
Well, you’ve been spot on about Tesla over the years and up to this point :)
I guess if you keep predicting THIS is the year Tesla fails to grow 40-50% you’ll eventually be right. You’ll also be about as useful as a broken clock.
Not that you’ll listen, but you can’t gauge Chia demand by looking at month to month sales. Some months Tesla ships China production abroad and some months they focus on the domestic market. I’ll believe there is a China demand problem with China sales go down QoQ. That would be discouraging, but the only thing that really matters is global sales and any temporary stagnation in China market can be taken up by Europe, NA, Australia, SE Asia, etc. Tesla can also expand to new markets, such as India and South America. Tesla can also start marketing or reduce prices, so that they’re only making unheard of 25% margins instead of unheard of 30% margins. Not to mention that US buyers will once again qualify for $7500 federal credit starting Jan 1. Tesla will be globally supply constrained for several years to come. The “competition” can’t even get out of the starting gates.
chia demand is usually high over the christmas holiday.
cha cha cha chia!
BEV companies are not competing against each other for BEV customers, they are competing against ICE mfgs for new BEV owners.
BYD is competing for traditional ICE compact coupes and sedans which are low margin, low cost vehicles.
Tesla is competing for traditional ICE intermediate and full size sedan and SUVs that are high margin and premium pricing. They don't compete against each other.
The pool of new BEV customers is growing faster than people can count. Any EV mfg that is not selling on a waiting list without advertising should do themselves a favor and just shut down, they are done. Global BEV market share is still less than 10% of all vehicle sales. All BEV mfg can grow BEV sales at 50% per year for a number of years before reaching a saturation point. The catch is that traditional mfg are not necessarily growing top or bottom line at 50% per year because they are just swapping ICE owners with BEV owners.
I'm confused now. Please help.
1) Tesla is not competing against a legacy and now pure EV company because most of BYD's cars are not semi/luxury cars.
2) Tesla is competing against legacy ICE car companies that are (mostly) still selling ICE cars.
It doesn't seem like Ford, GM, Stellantis, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan meet both rules. They have some semi/luxury cars but no one would call them a premium car manufacturer. Would you agree?
I would not consider the M3/MY premium vehicles. They are premium priced and compete with the intermediate ICE market. A typical first-time tesla buyer has never purchased a car for more than 40k.
Tesla has already taken a lot of the buyers of the luxury market like BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, etc with both S/3/X/Y models and will continue to take more, but the Tesla logarithmic volume increase is coming from the intermediate/full size legacy auto.
Tesla is taking historic Ford Explorer and Taurus buyers
Tesla is taking historic Chev Traverse and Impala buyers
Tesla is taking historic Toyota Highlander and Camry buyers
Tesla is taking historic Honda CRV and Accord buyers, I know someone that went from a Civic to a tesla and the Civic was the most expensive car they had ever purchased.
Tesla is taking Nissan Murano and Maxima buyers
They are getting buyers from the smaller and larger versions of these mfg offerings too.
This is about how fast BEV mfg overall can scale, not about competition. Every day more BEV buyers will be in line waiting for their opportunity to get out of their ICE vehicle into a BEV. Tesla only needs to convert about 1 to 2 out of ten of these transitioners through the saturation period over the next ten years or so. Now if and when these BYD buyers are ready for an intermediate or full-size vehicle, Tesla will be ready for them when they are ready.
I wish great success to BYD and expect they will surpass Tesla in unit BEV volume pretty soon, that might be because sub-compacts are higher volume vehicles worldwide than intermediate/full size like Tesla plays in. But that doesn't change anything for either of them, they are each meeting a need in the market to convert ICE drivers to BEV. Fortunately for BYD, they are growing the overall company faster than the ICE sales are declining. For the rest of legacy auto, it remains to be seen whether they can grow BEV as fast as ICE declines. It is not looking good for most of them.
Comparing a BYD BEV against Tesla is like comparing a GEO Metro with a Chevy Malibu. They are two different markets of buyers, both are necessary, but both did not provide the same profitability to the company when GEO was still around. No one would say these two models are competing with each other for buyers. If and when BYD comes to the US, they will be stealing from the sub-compact legacy ICE market of buyers. As I said, it is all about converting ICE buyers. If Tesla comes out of this in 10 years with 10-20%(1 to 2 out of ten ICE conversions to BEV) market share will make them the largest by a significant amount. Toyota is the largest today with ~10% market share globally.
Its time to boycott Elon Musk businesses.
#BoycottTwitter #BoycottTesla
Bacchi will believe Tesla can..
build a compelling EV
mass produce an EV
build out a nationwide network of superchargers
open a factory in China in one year’s time from ground breaking
turn a profit
turn a profit in consecutive quarters
turn a profit for a whole year
grow 40-50% yoy
make their own batteries
sell vehicles with 28% margin
make a class 8 semi
maintain/grow China demand in face of increased Shanghai production
...when he sees it.
Its time to boycott Elon Musk businesses.
#BoycottTwitter #BoycottTesla
2023 will be the year investors start thinking about TSLA as just another car company. New competition in the BEV space, and perhaps softening demand, will bring Tesla's margins closer to industry norms. If Tesla's margins collapse faster than growth makes up for it, we might see some losing quarters from TSLA. Even if that doesn't happen, the wide range of new market entrants will put the kibosh on all this talk about Tesla's world domination and raise questions about valuation.
https://www.greencars.com/expert-insights/new-electric-vehicles-coming-in-2023 (https://www.greencars.com/expert-insights/new-electric-vehicles-coming-in-2023)
https://topelectricsuv.com/featured/upcoming-electric-cars-2022-2023/#Tesla_Roadster (https://topelectricsuv.com/featured/upcoming-electric-cars-2022-2023/#Tesla_Roadster)
2023 will be the year investors start thinking about TSLA as just another car company. New competition in the BEV space, and perhaps softening demand, will bring Tesla's margins closer to industry norms. If Tesla's margins collapse faster than growth makes up for it, we might see some losing quarters from TSLA. Even if that doesn't happen, the wide range of new market entrants will put the kibosh on all this talk about Tesla's world domination and raise questions about valuation.
https://www.greencars.com/expert-insights/new-electric-vehicles-coming-in-2023 (https://www.greencars.com/expert-insights/new-electric-vehicles-coming-in-2023)
https://topelectricsuv.com/featured/upcoming-electric-cars-2022-2023/#Tesla_Roadster (https://topelectricsuv.com/featured/upcoming-electric-cars-2022-2023/#Tesla_Roadster)
I think you should consider the nuances in the business models of Tesla vs other OEMs. Why do you think industry margins would homogenous? Especially between EV and ICE. Tesla's manufacturing processes are wildly different than other manufacturers so why should Gross Margin be the same? Here's a video of Munroe and Associates going over the iterations of Tesla's body manufacturing: https://youtu.be/WNWYk4DdT_E (https://youtu.be/WNWYk4DdT_E)
There are also software products, insurance, energy products (storage deployed grew 62% yoy), charging infrastructure, and revenue from services and parts which is just getting off the ground because there's actually many cars on the road now as opposed to some companies like Ford and GM which are a century old.
New EV entrants isn't an argument for margin collapse.
You know a ton about investing. It's obvious and I see it in other threads. I'm just not sure you're educating yourself on this company or the industry before passing judgments.
If Elon had not bought Twitter I'm pretty sure Tesla would be much more highly valued; although I don't like his tweets etc I don't think that impacts Tesla long term prospects.
If Elon had not bought Twitter I'm pretty sure Tesla would be much more highly valued; although I don't like his tweets etc I don't think that impacts Tesla long term prospects.
But it is translating to people not buying the cars, so that is a concern. How many people are going to change their purchase inclinations due to CEO antics? That is the question. It could just be a blip, I remember some anti-apple, any phone but apple, etc. and I can't recall what that was about but it did not seriously impact the iphone trajectory.
I find it interesting that the Tesla 'stans (correctly) point out that Tesla overcame a lot of doubters/haters/disbelief and will now almost certainly be a top-3 or at least top-5 automaker eventually, but in the same breath seem to refuse to believe that *any* of the legacy automakers and/or other BEV startups will offer meaningful competition for Tesla.
I mean, there are an awful lot of big companies with lots of money and smart engineers aiming most of their efforts at the BEV market now. Even if only a few succeed, that's infinitely more competition than Tesla faces now. And to be frank, BEVs are a lot easier to make than ICE cars. I'd expect many, many companies to succeed in producing good ones.
Yeah, you can't get most of them yet. Yeah, they're going to have a struggle to scale up. But 3 or 4 years from now there will be a freaking ton of choices (if you're willing to be on a waitlist for 6 months, there already are, really).
-W
Tesla has been earning a 28% net margin from their customers, eight times what market leader Toyota pulls in. Their ability to grow organically (e.g. set up new factories) has been fueled by quickly-growing operating earnings, but it all comes back to their customers being willing to pay several thousand dollars extra per car. Why are customers willing to pay Tesla roughly $9,500 in margin per car? An economist might say because Tesla has monopoly power in the BEV market (71% market share for BEVs in 2021, down to 65% in 2022). If you wanted a BEV in the past few years, it was Tesla or the downmarket Leaf / Bolt, which were themselves fairly expensive and had shorter range. Yes, there were some startups like Fisker also selling upmarket BEVs, but they weren't widely available.
There's also the tailwind from Tesla selling billions of dollars worth of pollution credits over the past few years. That market is destined to dry up as more and more manufacturers make their own BEVs.
The question is whether Tesla will continue to grow the top line quickly while simultaneously maintaining 8X industry margins in a near future when customers have many possible choices, such as a $34k Chevy Equinox BEV or Hyundai Kona BEV. An economist might say these new market entrants will break the monopolist's pricing power and force margins toward equilibrium.
Of course, the Tesla brand may retain some additional value to certain customers as a status symbol, so their margins may never get as low as a Chevy or Kia, but there are other luxury nameplates like Cadillac, Lexus, or Infinity that should be able to do the same thing. It will soon be fair to ask why Tesla is so special that their cars are worth thousands of dollars more than equivalent offerings from their competitors.
2023 will be the year investors start thinking about TSLA as just another car company. New competition in the BEV space, and perhaps softening demand, will bring Tesla's margins closer to industry norms. If Tesla's margins collapse faster than growth makes up for it, we might see some losing quarters from TSLA. Even if that doesn't happen, the wide range of new market entrants will put the kibosh on all this talk about Tesla's world domination and raise questions about valuation.
https://www.greencars.com/expert-insights/new-electric-vehicles-coming-in-2023 (https://www.greencars.com/expert-insights/new-electric-vehicles-coming-in-2023)
https://topelectricsuv.com/featured/upcoming-electric-cars-2022-2023/#Tesla_Roadster (https://topelectricsuv.com/featured/upcoming-electric-cars-2022-2023/#Tesla_Roadster)
I think you should consider the nuances in the business models of Tesla vs other OEMs. Why do you think industry margins would homogenous? Especially between EV and ICE. Tesla's manufacturing processes are wildly different than other manufacturers so why should Gross Margin be the same? Here's a video of Munroe and Associates going over the iterations of Tesla's body manufacturing: https://youtu.be/WNWYk4DdT_E (https://youtu.be/WNWYk4DdT_E)
There are also software products, insurance, energy products (storage deployed grew 62% yoy), charging infrastructure, and revenue from services and parts which is just getting off the ground because there's actually many cars on the road now as opposed to some companies like Ford and GM which are a century old.
New EV entrants isn't an argument for margin collapse.
You know a ton about investing. It's obvious and I see it in other threads. I'm just not sure you're educating yourself on this company or the industry before passing judgments.
Tesla has been earning a 28% net margin from their customers, eight times what market leader Toyota pulls in. Their ability to grow organically (e.g. set up new factories) has been fueled by quickly-growing operating earnings, but it all comes back to their customers being willing to pay several thousand dollars extra per car. Why are customers willing to pay Tesla roughly $9,500 in margin per car? An economist might say because Tesla has monopoly power in the BEV market (71% market share for BEVs in 2021, down to 65% in 2022). If you wanted a BEV in the past few years, it was Tesla or the downmarket Leaf / Bolt, which were themselves fairly expensive and had shorter range. Yes, there were some startups like Fisker also selling upmarket BEVs, but they weren't widely available.
There's also the tailwind from Tesla selling billions of dollars worth of pollution credits over the past few years. That market is destined to dry up as more and more manufacturers make their own BEVs.
The question is whether Tesla will continue to grow the top line quickly while simultaneously maintaining 8X industry margins in a near future when customers have many possible choices, such as a $34k Chevy Equinox BEV or Hyundai Kona BEV. An economist might say these new market entrants will break the monopolist's pricing power and force margins toward equilibrium.
Of course, the Tesla brand may retain some additional value to certain customers as a status symbol, so their margins may never get as low as a Chevy or Kia, but there are other luxury nameplates like Cadillac, Lexus, or Infinity that should be able to do the same thing. It will soon be fair to ask why Tesla is so special that their cars are worth thousands of dollars more than equivalent offerings from their competitors.
Do you think that Tesla will be the only one to have/hold high margins on EVs?
What is stopping the electric division of the big players, or the new startups to follow suit (GM, Ford, VW, Rivian, etc.)?
As a thought experiment, 10 years down the road after this all shakes out, what will the paths to success look like? It seems kind of obvious how the big players might fall; they maintain old manufacturing and selling strategies that become less and less competitive as EV sales squeeze them. But how would the potentially successful ones look? I think that's a scenario that isn't accounted for by ColoradoTribe, etc. (I might be wrong here though)
It is assumed that every single one will fall by the wayside, won't innovate, don't see the $ on the table from the Tesla way (similar to how companies started following the Toyota way in the 90's). Which is definitely a possibility, but it just seems that long term there is too much $ for *no one* to compete.
I am not making comment on the valuation specifically, just the general tone of the posts. It could be a decent buy right now but I don't have the capability to know that.
Do you think that Tesla will be the only one to have/hold high margins on EVs?
What is stopping the electric division of the big players, or the new startups to follow suit (GM, Ford, VW, Rivian, etc.)?
As a thought experiment, 10 years down the road after this all shakes out, what will the paths to success look like? It seems kind of obvious how the big players might fall; they maintain old manufacturing and selling strategies that become less and less competitive as EV sales squeeze them. But how would the potentially successful ones look? I think that's a scenario that isn't accounted for by ColoradoTribe, etc. (I might be wrong here though)
It is assumed that every single one will fall by the wayside, won't innovate, don't see the $ on the table from the Tesla way (similar to how companies started following the Toyota way in the 90's). Which is definitely a possibility, but it just seems that long term there is too much $ for *no one* to compete.
I am not making comment on the valuation specifically, just the general tone of the posts. It could be a decent buy right now but I don't have the capability to know that.
1) Part of that extra margin for Tesla is because they don’t have middle men in the form of dealers. Not having to deal with dealers is also a value add for Tesla customers.
2) Tesla vehicles come with access to the supercharger network. This is entirely unique to Tesla and provides added functionality and value to Tesla vehicles. Owners of other EVs will either need a second ICE vehicle or to rent a car for cross country trips that can easily be accomplished in a Tesla using the supercharging network.
3) OTAs fixes and software upgrades. Tesla vehicles can be improved and in many cases fixed without having to bring the car into a shop. Tesla is the industry leader here. Tesla has actually improved the range of cars that were already sold using OTAs. I’m not aware of any other car company doing that for its customers.
4) Giga-casting. Tesla structural battery pack paired with front and rear castings greatly reduces the number of components and welds that go into a vehicle, improve vehicle handling, reducing cost, and reducing the number of potential issues down the road. It improves margins and offers the customer a superior product.
5) Best in the business batteries. Higher energy density, better thermal management, lower rates of battery degradation. It’ll be a long time before legacy catches up to Tesla on this front.
6) Best driver assist software (AutoPilot) in the business. While everyone is focusing on autonomy, Tesla’s “auto pilot” is rapidly improving and preventing accidents and saving lives NOW. I don’t know when/if they’ll achieve autonomous, but in the meantime this is still a big value add to Tesla’s customers.
7) Highest safety and customer satisfaction ratings in the business. Consumers care about safety and Tesla’s are some of the safest vehicles on the road.
There are dozens more things, big and small, like those listed above. You seem to think folks are buying Tesla’s mainly because of some blind brand loyalty or because Tesla is a monopoly. In reality, once people start researching the alternatives they are seeing the value proposition Teslas offer to justify the pricing.
1) Part of that extra margin for Tesla is because they don’t have middle men in the form of dealers. Not having to deal with dealers is also a value add for Tesla customers.
2) Tesla vehicles come with access to the supercharger network. This is entirely unique to Tesla and provides added functionality and value to Tesla vehicles. Owners of other EVs will either need a second ICE vehicle or to rent a car for cross country trips that can easily be accomplished in a Tesla using the supercharging network.
3) OTAs fixes and software upgrades. Tesla vehicles can be improved and in many cases fixed without having to bring the car into a shop. Tesla is the industry leader here. Tesla has actually improved the range of cars that were already sold using OTAs. I’m not aware of any other car company doing that for its customers.
4) Giga-casting. Tesla structural battery pack paired with front and rear castings greatly reduces the number of components and welds that go into a vehicle, improve vehicle handling, reducing cost, and reducing the number of potential issues down the road. It improves margins and offers the customer a superior product.
5) Best in the business batteries. Higher energy density, better thermal management, lower rates of battery degradation. It’ll be a long time before legacy catches up to Tesla on this front.
6) Best driver assist software (AutoPilot) in the business. While everyone is focusing on autonomy, Tesla’s “auto pilot” is rapidly improving and preventing accidents and saving lives NOW. I don’t know when/if they’ll achieve autonomous, but in the meantime this is still a big value add to Tesla’s customers.
7) Highest safety and customer satisfaction ratings in the business. Consumers care about safety and Tesla’s are some of the safest vehicles on the road.
There are dozens more things, big and small, like those listed above. You seem to think folks are buying Tesla’s mainly because of some blind brand loyalty or because Tesla is a monopoly. In reality, once people start researching the alternatives they are seeing the value proposition Teslas offer to justify the pricing.
And none of those attributes will be attainable by other companies? I'm genuinely not trying to be contrarian for the sake of it, just curious about where your head is at.
If you were the head of Kia, wouldn't you be making mid and long-term moves to compete? The youtube video linked above about the 3-piece casting is quite impressive. Presumably they have access to youtube as well, no? How would your internal decisions look from a public facing standpoint?
You didn't explicitly say that they would all fail (and if you read back, I said "it is assumed"), but perhaps I should have said "implied" rather than "assumed". With most innovations like this, the competition closes the gap, rather than the innovator widening it.
The Honda Superhawk (a motorcycle from the late 90's), was innovative in a similar way to the structural battery pack, where the engine casing was used as a structural element of the frame rather than just being suspended in it. Lighter, stiffer and more cost effective. At the time, it was interesting to the tech world and a first in production motorcycles. Now most sport motorcycles use this method of construction and it isn't even listed as a feature; it's just how motorcycles are built. Honda is no better at doing it than any other motorcycle company, and is in no better position for being the first to do it. This can be said for the countless improvements in vehicle design in general. Items 3-7 listed for Tesla fall into the category of approachable by other manufacturers in the future for me.
Currently, if I were to spend $40K on a vehicle and it had to be an EV, Tesla would be the top of the list. Like walt was alluding to, for some reason it is easy to see Tesla beating the odds, but somehow in the same discussion not recognize that it's possible for others to do the same.
As an example of Tesla's current EV manufacturing prowess:
Tesla Model Y and Ford Mach-e were both released in 2020.
Tesla Model Y Production: >1,000,000
Ford Mach-e Production: just celebrated 150,000 total produced
I'll acknowledge the Nissan Leaf was an inferior value proposition compared to a Tesla Model 3, or even the Nissan Versa, and that's why fewer were sold. But we're not talking about 2012 or 2016 or 2020, we're talking about the future. The future looks like lots of $30-40k EVs from most of the biggest auto manufacturers.As an example of Tesla's current EV manufacturing prowess:
Tesla Model Y and Ford Mach-e were both released in 2020.
Tesla Model Y Production: >1,000,000
Ford Mach-e Production: just celebrated 150,000 total produced
Yep, and the Nissan Leaf was introduced in the US in 2011 or 2012 and Nissan has yet to sell 200,000 LEAF in the US.
I'll acknowledge the Nissan Leaf was an inferior value proposition compared to a Tesla Model 3, or even the Nissan Versa, and that's why fewer were sold. But we're not talking about 2012 or 2016 or 2020, we're talking about the future. The future looks like lots of $30-40k EVs from most of the biggest auto manufacturers.As an example of Tesla's current EV manufacturing prowess:
Tesla Model Y and Ford Mach-e were both released in 2020.
Tesla Model Y Production: >1,000,000
Ford Mach-e Production: just celebrated 150,000 total produced
Yep, and the Nissan Leaf was introduced in the US in 2011 or 2012 and Nissan has yet to sell 200,000 LEAF in the US.
These new vehicles will have Tesla-like product benefits, perhaps easier serviceability, and probably much lower costs of ownership (Edmunds TCO says the cost of owning a Tesla Model 3 is in line with a BMW 5-series, out of reach for most families). They'll be advertised aggressively, widely available for test drives, and financed at sub-inflation rates. Many (most?) of them will use the CCS industry standard plug and be interoperable with Tesla's Supercharger network.
So it may be true that Tesla sold the best BEVs or the only competitive BEVs in 2018 or 2020 or even 2022, but those talking points are water under the bridge. Other car manufacturers are eating away at Tesla's technological advantages, if not directly stealing Tesla's under-protected IP, so product parity may be inevitable for at least some of Tesla's competitors. I'm sure some companies will fail at the transition - they always do - but this does not mean that nobody else in the world can make a competitive BEV. In 2023, we're going to witness this happening multiple times.
Then, people are going to ask why they own TSLA at a PE ratio of 57 when other BEV manufacturers are one-fifth the valuation. People are also going to start asking if a Model 3 compact sedan is really worth 10-20k more than an electric Equinox or Kona.
Edmunds TCO says the cost of owning a Tesla Model 3 is in line with a BMW 5-series
Tesla has been earning a 28% net margin from their customers, eight times what market leader Toyota pulls in. Their ability to grow organically (e.g. set up new factories) has been fueled by quickly-growing operating earnings, but it all comes back to their customers being willing to pay several thousand dollars extra per car. Why are customers willing to pay Tesla roughly $9,500 in margin per car? An economist might say because Tesla has monopoly power in the BEV market (71% market share for BEVs in 2021, down to 65% in 2022). If you wanted a BEV in the past few years, it was Tesla or the downmarket Leaf / Bolt, which were themselves fairly expensive and had shorter range. Yes, there were some startups like Fisker also selling upmarket BEVs, but they weren't widely available.
There's also the tailwind from Tesla selling billions of dollars worth of pollution credits over the past few years. That market is destined to dry up as more and more manufacturers make their own BEVs.
The question is whether Tesla will continue to grow the top line quickly while simultaneously maintaining 8X industry margins in a near future when customers have many possible choices, such as a $34k Chevy Equinox BEV or Hyundai Kona BEV. An economist might say these new market entrants will break the monopolist's pricing power and force margins toward equilibrium.
Of course, the Tesla brand may retain some additional value to certain customers as a status symbol, so their margins may never get as low as a Chevy or Kia, but there are other luxury nameplates like Cadillac, Lexus, or Infinity that should be able to do the same thing. It will soon be fair to ask why Tesla is so special that their cars are worth thousands of dollars more than equivalent offerings from their competitors.
Thanks. An economist might also say that Tesla has a better product than just monopoly power. So you believe Tesla will reduce prices only and not costs? Margins are affected by sale price and cost. As you know, most of Toyota's margins (nearly all) are a result of ICE sales. That's a different cost structure for manufacturing than what Tesla has in manufacturing only EVs. Different raw materials, labor requirements, cooling systems, electronics, suppliers, and manufacturing techniques. Tesla is pioneering single body castings and in house pack manufacturing. They make their own seats and heat pumps. They design their own onboard navigation computers. They have a direct to consumer selling model.
The models are too different to expect homogenous margins.
My Opinion:
1. Tesla hasn't yet pulled the demand level for offering bare bones Model 3s or Ys yet because they've been able to sell higher priced/range models. And they are still reducing manufacturing costs and ramping production in 2 factories which will bring more operating leverage.
2. Tesla's net margin is only 17%. Gross margin is around that 28-29%. It is still 8x Toyota's earnings but only <2x Gross Margin. ICE and EV costs are not the same.
3. I do not believe OEMs won't sell EVs, but their margins will continue to struggle. ColoradoTribe has been trying to point out that most EV sales are switches from ICE, not EV to EV. As GM aims to produce a million EVs by 2025, they are cannibalizing their own ICE sales to do it. Ford is the same. Toyota is the same. These companies aren't growing their margins, they are shrinking.
4. Tesla will reduce price and cost while increasing other services. Margins will not compress. Top line will grow with Cybertruck, Semi, FSD sales, Supercharger growth, and Energy Storage growth.
5. Energy credits will vanish and it won't matter. 10% of net income last quarter.
6. Customers don't look at what the margin for a vehicle is. $9,500/per vehicle is Unknown to most people. I've personally never met an individual in real life who also reads 10Qs. Buyers compare features, range, ease of use, convenience, build quality. All kinds of things. Consumers are all different but on the average, Tesla has excelled.
7. The next tailwind is the IRA. Consumers will receive tax credits for purchasing Tesla's in full while most manufacturers will only get a partial credit due to the sources of batteries and assembly requirements. Tesla will also be the only manufacturer in 2023 to receive the corporate credits for manufacturing batteries. GM and others will get there in a few years but most of their battery plants have not even begun being built.
8. Most manufactures won't have the capacity in 2023 to offer a meaningful number of EV sales in the market. Tesla is at a 2 million run rate world wide. No one else is even close to that yet.
I own a 2017 Leaf, so I have a little experience with that particular car.
Leafs from 2011 (first introduced) still sell for $10k or so used, so (IMO) they hold their value fairly well. Battery degradation is the only real issue unless you wreck it, and they seem to have no problem with the battery lasting well past the 100k miles/8 years warranty and still retaining useful range. The battery temperature management on the older ones isn't the best so if you live somewhere really hot that can be an issue, I'm told.
They are only useful (at least the older ones, I think there are now some with 200+ mile ranges) for very specific types of owners, though - city driving/commuting only, no road tripping, fairly compact size/limited cargo capacity/not very fast or cool. Not comparable to a Tesla in most ways.
-W
1) Part of that extra margin for Tesla is because they don’t have middle men in the form of dealers. Not having to deal with dealers is also a value add for Tesla customers.
2) Tesla vehicles come with access to the supercharger network. This is entirely unique to Tesla and provides added functionality and value to Tesla vehicles. Owners of other EVs will either need a second ICE vehicle or to rent a car for cross country trips that can easily be accomplished in a Tesla using the supercharging network.
3) OTAs fixes and software upgrades. Tesla vehicles can be improved and in many cases fixed without having to bring the car into a shop. Tesla is the industry leader here. Tesla has actually improved the range of cars that were already sold using OTAs. I’m not aware of any other car company doing that for its customers.
4) Giga-casting. Tesla structural battery pack paired with front and rear castings greatly reduces the number of components and welds that go into a vehicle, improve vehicle handling, reducing cost, and reducing the number of potential issues down the road. It improves margins and offers the customer a superior product.
5) Best in the business batteries. Higher energy density, better thermal management, lower rates of battery degradation. It’ll be a long time before legacy catches up to Tesla on this front.
6) Best driver assist software (AutoPilot) in the business. While everyone is focusing on autonomy, Tesla’s “auto pilot” is rapidly improving and preventing accidents and saving lives NOW. I don’t know when/if they’ll achieve autonomous, but in the meantime this is still a big value add to Tesla’s customers.
7) Highest safety and customer satisfaction ratings in the business. Consumers care about safety and Tesla’s are some of the safest vehicles on the road.
There are dozens more things, big and small, like those listed above. You seem to think folks are buying Tesla’s mainly because of some blind brand loyalty or because Tesla is a monopoly. In reality, once people start researching the alternatives they are seeing the value proposition Teslas offer to justify the pricing.
And none of those attributes will be attainable by other companies? I'm genuinely not trying to be contrarian for the sake of it, just curious about where your head is at.
If you were the head of Kia, wouldn't you be making mid and long-term moves to compete? The youtube video linked above about the 3-piece casting is quite impressive. Presumably they have access to youtube as well, no? How would your internal decisions look from a public facing standpoint?
You didn't explicitly say that they would all fail (and if you read back, I said "it is assumed"), but perhaps I should have said "implied" rather than "assumed". With most innovations like this, the competition closes the gap, rather than the innovator widening it.
The Honda Superhawk (a motorcycle from the late 90's), was innovative in a similar way to the structural battery pack, where the engine casing was used as a structural element of the frame rather than just being suspended in it. Lighter, stiffer and more cost effective. At the time, it was interesting to the tech world and a first in production motorcycles. Now most sport motorcycles use this method of construction and it isn't even listed as a feature; it's just how motorcycles are built. Honda is no better at doing it than any other motorcycle company, and is in no better position for being the first to do it. This can be said for the countless improvements in vehicle design in general. Items 3-7 listed for Tesla fall into the category of approachable by other manufacturers in the future for me.
Currently, if I were to spend $40K on a vehicle and it had to be an EV, Tesla would be the top of the list. Like walt was alluding to, for some reason it is easy to see Tesla beating the odds, but somehow in the same discussion not recognize that it's possible for others to do the same.
Tesla Will Dominate U.S. EV Sales Through 2030. The Future No. 2 Player Might Surprise You. -- Barrons.com
11:58 am ET November 30, 2022 (Dow Jones) Print
Al Root
Tesla has the lion's share of the market for battery electric cars in the U.S. it is going to be the electric-vehicle leader through the end of the decade. Tesla has left itself vulnerable in one way though, and General Motors plans to exploit that weakness.
Auto industry data provider S&P Global Mobility reported Tuesday that about 525,000 battery electric vehicles were sold in the U.S. over the first nine months of 2022. About 340,000 of those were Tesla (ticker: TSLA) vehicles.
1) Part of that extra margin for Tesla is because they don’t have middle men in the form of dealers. Not having to deal with dealers is also a value add for Tesla customers.
2) Tesla vehicles come with access to the supercharger network. This is entirely unique to Tesla and provides added functionality and value to Tesla vehicles. Owners of other EVs will either need a second ICE vehicle or to rent a car for cross country trips that can easily be accomplished in a Tesla using the supercharging network.
3) OTAs fixes and software upgrades. Tesla vehicles can be improved and in many cases fixed without having to bring the car into a shop. Tesla is the industry leader here. Tesla has actually improved the range of cars that were already sold using OTAs. I’m not aware of any other car company doing that for its customers.
4) Giga-casting. Tesla structural battery pack paired with front and rear castings greatly reduces the number of components and welds that go into a vehicle, improve vehicle handling, reducing cost, and reducing the number of potential issues down the road. It improves margins and offers the customer a superior product.
5) Best in the business batteries. Higher energy density, better thermal management, lower rates of battery degradation. It’ll be a long time before legacy catches up to Tesla on this front.
6) Best driver assist software (AutoPilot) in the business. While everyone is focusing on autonomy, Tesla’s “auto pilot” is rapidly improving and preventing accidents and saving lives NOW. I don’t know when/if they’ll achieve autonomous, but in the meantime this is still a big value add to Tesla’s customers.
7) Highest safety and customer satisfaction ratings in the business. Consumers care about safety and Tesla’s are some of the safest vehicles on the road.
There are dozens more things, big and small, like those listed above. You seem to think folks are buying Tesla’s mainly because of some blind brand loyalty or because Tesla is a monopoly. In reality, once people start researching the alternatives they are seeing the value proposition Teslas offer to justify the pricing.
And none of those attributes will be attainable by other companies? I'm genuinely not trying to be contrarian for the sake of it, just curious about where your head is at.
If you were the head of Kia, wouldn't you be making mid and long-term moves to compete? The youtube video linked above about the 3-piece casting is quite impressive. Presumably they have access to youtube as well, no? How would your internal decisions look from a public facing standpoint?
You didn't explicitly say that they would all fail (and if you read back, I said "it is assumed"), but perhaps I should have said "implied" rather than "assumed". With most innovations like this, the competition closes the gap, rather than the innovator widening it.
The Honda Superhawk (a motorcycle from the late 90's), was innovative in a similar way to the structural battery pack, where the engine casing was used as a structural element of the frame rather than just being suspended in it. Lighter, stiffer and more cost effective. At the time, it was interesting to the tech world and a first in production motorcycles. Now most sport motorcycles use this method of construction and it isn't even listed as a feature; it's just how motorcycles are built. Honda is no better at doing it than any other motorcycle company, and is in no better position for being the first to do it. This can be said for the countless improvements in vehicle design in general. Items 3-7 listed for Tesla fall into the category of approachable by other manufacturers in the future for me.
Currently, if I were to spend $40K on a vehicle and it had to be an EV, Tesla would be the top of the list. Like walt was alluding to, for some reason it is easy to see Tesla beating the odds, but somehow in the same discussion not recognize that it's possible for others to do the same.
I'm not really following what the essence of your argument is. There have always been multiple car companies and that will more than likely continue. What about their success in the EV transition is likely to topple tesla? That is really where I thought the discussion was - how other EV offerings were going to put pressure on tesla - like to lower margin, for example.
So the points being put forward aren't that other companies are or aren't going to do it, or be successful at it. It is just reiterating that tesla has already secured their seat at the table, regardless of what those other companies eventual do.
1) Part of that extra margin for Tesla is because they don’t have middle men in the form of dealers. Not having to deal with dealers is also a value add for Tesla customers.
2) Tesla vehicles come with access to the supercharger network. This is entirely unique to Tesla and provides added functionality and value to Tesla vehicles. Owners of other EVs will either need a second ICE vehicle or to rent a car for cross country trips that can easily be accomplished in a Tesla using the supercharging network.
3) OTAs fixes and software upgrades. Tesla vehicles can be improved and in many cases fixed without having to bring the car into a shop. Tesla is the industry leader here. Tesla has actually improved the range of cars that were already sold using OTAs. I’m not aware of any other car company doing that for its customers.
4) Giga-casting. Tesla structural battery pack paired with front and rear castings greatly reduces the number of components and welds that go into a vehicle, improve vehicle handling, reducing cost, and reducing the number of potential issues down the road. It improves margins and offers the customer a superior product.
5) Best in the business batteries. Higher energy density, better thermal management, lower rates of battery degradation. It’ll be a long time before legacy catches up to Tesla on this front.
6) Best driver assist software (AutoPilot) in the business. While everyone is focusing on autonomy, Tesla’s “auto pilot” is rapidly improving and preventing accidents and saving lives NOW. I don’t know when/if they’ll achieve autonomous, but in the meantime this is still a big value add to Tesla’s customers.
7) Highest safety and customer satisfaction ratings in the business. Consumers care about safety and Tesla’s are some of the safest vehicles on the road.
There are dozens more things, big and small, like those listed above. You seem to think folks are buying Tesla’s mainly because of some blind brand loyalty or because Tesla is a monopoly. In reality, once people start researching the alternatives they are seeing the value proposition Teslas offer to justify the pricing.
And none of those attributes will be attainable by other companies? I'm genuinely not trying to be contrarian for the sake of it, just curious about where your head is at.
If you were the head of Kia, wouldn't you be making mid and long-term moves to compete? The youtube video linked above about the 3-piece casting is quite impressive. Presumably they have access to youtube as well, no? How would your internal decisions look from a public facing standpoint?
You didn't explicitly say that they would all fail (and if you read back, I said "it is assumed"), but perhaps I should have said "implied" rather than "assumed". With most innovations like this, the competition closes the gap, rather than the innovator widening it.
The Honda Superhawk (a motorcycle from the late 90's), was innovative in a similar way to the structural battery pack, where the engine casing was used as a structural element of the frame rather than just being suspended in it. Lighter, stiffer and more cost effective. At the time, it was interesting to the tech world and a first in production motorcycles. Now most sport motorcycles use this method of construction and it isn't even listed as a feature; it's just how motorcycles are built. Honda is no better at doing it than any other motorcycle company, and is in no better position for being the first to do it. This can be said for the countless improvements in vehicle design in general. Items 3-7 listed for Tesla fall into the category of approachable by other manufacturers in the future for me.
Currently, if I were to spend $40K on a vehicle and it had to be an EV, Tesla would be the top of the list. Like walt was alluding to, for some reason it is easy to see Tesla beating the odds, but somehow in the same discussion not recognize that it's possible for others to do the same.
I'm not really following what the essence of your argument is. There have always been multiple car companies and that will more than likely continue. What about their success in the EV transition is likely to topple tesla? That is really where I thought the discussion was - how other EV offerings were going to put pressure on tesla - like to lower margin, for example.
So the points being put forward aren't that other companies are or aren't going to do it, or be successful at it. It is just reiterating that tesla has already secured their seat at the table, regardless of what those other companies eventual do.
Nobody has to topple Tesla. They'll probably do great. It's just that Tesla will inevitably become just another car company among many car companies producing a similar thing in a highly competitive and capital-intensive market. In that future world, will Tesla's valuation still look like a tech stock, or will its valuation be comparable to its industrial peers?
1) Part of that extra margin for Tesla is because they don’t have middle men in the form of dealers. Not having to deal with dealers is also a value add for Tesla customers.
2) Tesla vehicles come with access to the supercharger network. This is entirely unique to Tesla and provides added functionality and value to Tesla vehicles. Owners of other EVs will either need a second ICE vehicle or to rent a car for cross country trips that can easily be accomplished in a Tesla using the supercharging network.
3) OTAs fixes and software upgrades. Tesla vehicles can be improved and in many cases fixed without having to bring the car into a shop. Tesla is the industry leader here. Tesla has actually improved the range of cars that were already sold using OTAs. I’m not aware of any other car company doing that for its customers.
4) Giga-casting. Tesla structural battery pack paired with front and rear castings greatly reduces the number of components and welds that go into a vehicle, improve vehicle handling, reducing cost, and reducing the number of potential issues down the road. It improves margins and offers the customer a superior product.
5) Best in the business batteries. Higher energy density, better thermal management, lower rates of battery degradation. It’ll be a long time before legacy catches up to Tesla on this front.
6) Best driver assist software (AutoPilot) in the business. While everyone is focusing on autonomy, Tesla’s “auto pilot” is rapidly improving and preventing accidents and saving lives NOW. I don’t know when/if they’ll achieve autonomous, but in the meantime this is still a big value add to Tesla’s customers.
7) Highest safety and customer satisfaction ratings in the business. Consumers care about safety and Tesla’s are some of the safest vehicles on the road.
There are dozens more things, big and small, like those listed above. You seem to think folks are buying Tesla’s mainly because of some blind brand loyalty or because Tesla is a monopoly. In reality, once people start researching the alternatives they are seeing the value proposition Teslas offer to justify the pricing.
And none of those attributes will be attainable by other companies? I'm genuinely not trying to be contrarian for the sake of it, just curious about where your head is at.
If you were the head of Kia, wouldn't you be making mid and long-term moves to compete? The youtube video linked above about the 3-piece casting is quite impressive. Presumably they have access to youtube as well, no? How would your internal decisions look from a public facing standpoint?
You didn't explicitly say that they would all fail (and if you read back, I said "it is assumed"), but perhaps I should have said "implied" rather than "assumed". With most innovations like this, the competition closes the gap, rather than the innovator widening it.
The Honda Superhawk (a motorcycle from the late 90's), was innovative in a similar way to the structural battery pack, where the engine casing was used as a structural element of the frame rather than just being suspended in it. Lighter, stiffer and more cost effective. At the time, it was interesting to the tech world and a first in production motorcycles. Now most sport motorcycles use this method of construction and it isn't even listed as a feature; it's just how motorcycles are built. Honda is no better at doing it than any other motorcycle company, and is in no better position for being the first to do it. This can be said for the countless improvements in vehicle design in general. Items 3-7 listed for Tesla fall into the category of approachable by other manufacturers in the future for me.
Currently, if I were to spend $40K on a vehicle and it had to be an EV, Tesla would be the top of the list. Like walt was alluding to, for some reason it is easy to see Tesla beating the odds, but somehow in the same discussion not recognize that it's possible for others to do the same.
I'm not really following what the essence of your argument is. There have always been multiple car companies and that will more than likely continue. What about their success in the EV transition is likely to topple tesla? That is really where I thought the discussion was - how other EV offerings were going to put pressure on tesla - like to lower margin, for example.
So the points being put forward aren't that other companies are or aren't going to do it, or be successful at it. It is just reiterating that tesla has already secured their seat at the table, regardless of what those other companies eventual do.
Nobody has to topple Tesla. They'll probably do great. It's just that Tesla will inevitably become just another car company among many car companies producing a similar thing in a highly competitive and capital-intensive market. In that future world, will Tesla's valuation still look like a tech stock, or will its valuation be comparable to its industrial peers?
As a thought experiment, 10 years down the road after this all shakes out, what will the paths to success look like? It seems kind of obvious how the big players might fall; they maintain old manufacturing and selling strategies that become less and less competitive as EV sales squeeze them. But how would the potentially successful ones look? I think that's a scenario that isn't accounted for by ColoradoTribe, etc. (I might be wrong here though)The thing I see a lot of people ignoring about Tesla is that their new product launches are run terribly. Legacy automakers bring multiple new models to market every year while Tesla's last new product offering was Model Y in 2020. Other automakers will change their showroom offerings completely in the next 3 years and what will Tesla have to show people? The Cybertruck and Model S/3/X/Y?
It is assumed that every single one will fall by the wayside, won't innovate, don't see the $ on the table from the Tesla way (similar to how companies started following the Toyota way in the 90's). Which is definitely a possibility, but it just seems that long term there is too much $ for *no one* to compete.
As an example of Tesla's current EV manufacturing prowess:That was a failure of projection on Ford's part. The car was designed/tooled around a lower volume than actual market demand. They are resolving that:
Tesla Model Y and Ford Mach-e were both released in 2020.
Tesla Model Y Production: >1,000,000
Ford Mach-e Production: just celebrated 150,000 total produced
1) Part of that extra margin for Tesla is because they don’t have middle men in the form of dealers. Not having to deal with dealers is also a value add for Tesla customers.
2) Tesla vehicles come with access to the supercharger network. This is entirely unique to Tesla and provides added functionality and value to Tesla vehicles. Owners of other EVs will either need a second ICE vehicle or to rent a car for cross country trips that can easily be accomplished in a Tesla using the supercharging network.
3) OTAs fixes and software upgrades. Tesla vehicles can be improved and in many cases fixed without having to bring the car into a shop. Tesla is the industry leader here. Tesla has actually improved the range of cars that were already sold using OTAs. I’m not aware of any other car company doing that for its customers.
4) Giga-casting. Tesla structural battery pack paired with front and rear castings greatly reduces the number of components and welds that go into a vehicle, improve vehicle handling, reducing cost, and reducing the number of potential issues down the road. It improves margins and offers the customer a superior product.
5) Best in the business batteries. Higher energy density, better thermal management, lower rates of battery degradation. It’ll be a long time before legacy catches up to Tesla on this front.
6) Best driver assist software (AutoPilot) in the business. While everyone is focusing on autonomy, Tesla’s “auto pilot” is rapidly improving and preventing accidents and saving lives NOW. I don’t know when/if they’ll achieve autonomous, but in the meantime this is still a big value add to Tesla’s customers.
7) Highest safety and customer satisfaction ratings in the business. Consumers care about safety and Tesla’s are some of the safest vehicles on the road.
There are dozens more things, big and small, like those listed above. You seem to think folks are buying Tesla’s mainly because of some blind brand loyalty or because Tesla is a monopoly. In reality, once people start researching the alternatives they are seeing the value proposition Teslas offer to justify the pricing.
And none of those attributes will be attainable by other companies? I'm genuinely not trying to be contrarian for the sake of it, just curious about where your head is at.
If you were the head of Kia, wouldn't you be making mid and long-term moves to compete? The youtube video linked above about the 3-piece casting is quite impressive. Presumably they have access to youtube as well, no? How would your internal decisions look from a public facing standpoint?
You didn't explicitly say that they would all fail (and if you read back, I said "it is assumed"), but perhaps I should have said "implied" rather than "assumed". With most innovations like this, the competition closes the gap, rather than the innovator widening it.
The Honda Superhawk (a motorcycle from the late 90's), was innovative in a similar way to the structural battery pack, where the engine casing was used as a structural element of the frame rather than just being suspended in it. Lighter, stiffer and more cost effective. At the time, it was interesting to the tech world and a first in production motorcycles. Now most sport motorcycles use this method of construction and it isn't even listed as a feature; it's just how motorcycles are built. Honda is no better at doing it than any other motorcycle company, and is in no better position for being the first to do it. This can be said for the countless improvements in vehicle design in general. Items 3-7 listed for Tesla fall into the category of approachable by other manufacturers in the future for me.
Currently, if I were to spend $40K on a vehicle and it had to be an EV, Tesla would be the top of the list. Like walt was alluding to, for some reason it is easy to see Tesla beating the odds, but somehow in the same discussion not recognize that it's possible for others to do the same.
I'm not really following what the essence of your argument is. There have always been multiple car companies and that will more than likely continue. What about their success in the EV transition is likely to topple tesla? That is really where I thought the discussion was - how other EV offerings were going to put pressure on tesla - like to lower margin, for example.
So the points being put forward aren't that other companies are or aren't going to do it, or be successful at it. It is just reiterating that tesla has already secured their seat at the table, regardless of what those other companies eventual do.
Nobody has to topple Tesla. They'll probably do great. It's just that Tesla will inevitably become just another car company among many car companies producing a similar thing in a highly competitive and capital-intensive market. In that future world, will Tesla's valuation still look like a tech stock, or will its valuation be comparable to its industrial peers?
Good question. While you wait to see the answer, Tesla holders will reap big gains over the next decade while the competition plays catchup. Just like Tesla investors have benefitted from investing the past decade while skeptics contemplated all that might ever possibly go wrong along the way.
Tesla is not just an auto company. Tesla Energy revenue will eventually equal auto revenue once battery supply allows for wider deployments. Also, it’s not like Tesla is standing still waiting for others to catch up. Tesla is continuously innovating with the best and brightest engineers behind the scenes. They’ll continue to improve the power density and efficiency of their batteries, simplifying their manufacturing processes, reducing raw material inputs, like cobalt and nickel, improving their software, etc. Tesla cars will command a premium in the market, just like Apple products command a premium despite being in a “competitive” market.
It’s investing, nothing personal. I didn’t invest heavily in Netflix, Apple, Facebook or Google. I wasn’t in the right position financially, and even if I had been, I didn’t have the confidence that comes from being intimately familiar with a business and its market. My suggestion, don’t invest in Tesla, its clearly not something you can get onboard with, but perhaps speak with less confidence about its future prospects given how wrong you (collective you) have been to date. Instead of moving the goal posts or latching onto the latest reason du jour that Tesla is over-valued or likely to fail, maybe just quietly root for Tesla to succeed for all our sakes.
Saying Tesla will stop being a growth company some day isn’t really enlightening.That’s a given and not a reason to not invest in the short to medium term if you still believe Tesla has several years of exponential growth and innovation ahead.
1) Part of that extra margin for Tesla is because they don’t have middle men in the form of dealers. Not having to deal with dealers is also a value add for Tesla customers.
2) Tesla vehicles come with access to the supercharger network. This is entirely unique to Tesla and provides added functionality and value to Tesla vehicles. Owners of other EVs will either need a second ICE vehicle or to rent a car for cross country trips that can easily be accomplished in a Tesla using the supercharging network.
3) OTAs fixes and software upgrades. Tesla vehicles can be improved and in many cases fixed without having to bring the car into a shop. Tesla is the industry leader here. Tesla has actually improved the range of cars that were already sold using OTAs. I’m not aware of any other car company doing that for its customers.
4) Giga-casting. Tesla structural battery pack paired with front and rear castings greatly reduces the number of components and welds that go into a vehicle, improve vehicle handling, reducing cost, and reducing the number of potential issues down the road. It improves margins and offers the customer a superior product.
5) Best in the business batteries. Higher energy density, better thermal management, lower rates of battery degradation. It’ll be a long time before legacy catches up to Tesla on this front.
6) Best driver assist software (AutoPilot) in the business. While everyone is focusing on autonomy, Tesla’s “auto pilot” is rapidly improving and preventing accidents and saving lives NOW. I don’t know when/if they’ll achieve autonomous, but in the meantime this is still a big value add to Tesla’s customers.
7) Highest safety and customer satisfaction ratings in the business. Consumers care about safety and Tesla’s are some of the safest vehicles on the road.
There are dozens more things, big and small, like those listed above. You seem to think folks are buying Tesla’s mainly because of some blind brand loyalty or because Tesla is a monopoly. In reality, once people start researching the alternatives they are seeing the value proposition Teslas offer to justify the pricing.
And none of those attributes will be attainable by other companies? I'm genuinely not trying to be contrarian for the sake of it, just curious about where your head is at.
If you were the head of Kia, wouldn't you be making mid and long-term moves to compete? The youtube video linked above about the 3-piece casting is quite impressive. Presumably they have access to youtube as well, no? How would your internal decisions look from a public facing standpoint?
You didn't explicitly say that they would all fail (and if you read back, I said "it is assumed"), but perhaps I should have said "implied" rather than "assumed". With most innovations like this, the competition closes the gap, rather than the innovator widening it.
The Honda Superhawk (a motorcycle from the late 90's), was innovative in a similar way to the structural battery pack, where the engine casing was used as a structural element of the frame rather than just being suspended in it. Lighter, stiffer and more cost effective. At the time, it was interesting to the tech world and a first in production motorcycles. Now most sport motorcycles use this method of construction and it isn't even listed as a feature; it's just how motorcycles are built. Honda is no better at doing it than any other motorcycle company, and is in no better position for being the first to do it. This can be said for the countless improvements in vehicle design in general. Items 3-7 listed for Tesla fall into the category of approachable by other manufacturers in the future for me.
Currently, if I were to spend $40K on a vehicle and it had to be an EV, Tesla would be the top of the list. Like walt was alluding to, for some reason it is easy to see Tesla beating the odds, but somehow in the same discussion not recognize that it's possible for others to do the same.
I'm not really following what the essence of your argument is. There have always been multiple car companies and that will more than likely continue. What about their success in the EV transition is likely to topple tesla? That is really where I thought the discussion was - how other EV offerings were going to put pressure on tesla - like to lower margin, for example.
So the points being put forward aren't that other companies are or aren't going to do it, or be successful at it. It is just reiterating that tesla has already secured their seat at the table, regardless of what those other companies eventual do.
Nobody has to topple Tesla. They'll probably do great. It's just that Tesla will inevitably become just another car company among many car companies producing a similar thing in a highly competitive and capital-intensive market. In that future world, will Tesla's valuation still look like a tech stock, or will its valuation be comparable to its industrial peers?
Sounds like Shanghai production in October was higher than September. Lower deliveries is what one would expect when focusing on export. Which historically Tesla has done in the first month of a quarter.Quote from: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-shanghai-adds-inventory-highest-rate-ever-october-brokerage-data-2022-11-09In October, Tesla produced 87,706 Model 3s and Model Ys in Shanghai but delivered 71,704 vehicles, leaving a gap of 16,002 China-made cars in inventory, according to data from China Merchants Bank International (CMBI).(bolded)
That was the biggest gap between production and sales since Tesla opened its Shanghai Gigfactory in late 2019, CMBI data showed.
Sounds like Shanghai production in October was higher than September. Lower deliveries is what one would expect when focusing on export. Which historically Tesla has done in the first month of a quarter.Quote from: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-shanghai-adds-inventory-highest-rate-ever-october-brokerage-data-2022-11-09In October, Tesla produced 87,706 Model 3s and Model Ys in Shanghai but delivered 71,704 vehicles, leaving a gap of 16,002 China-made cars in inventory, according to data from China Merchants Bank International (CMBI).(bolded)
That was the biggest gap between production and sales since Tesla opened its Shanghai Gigfactory in late 2019, CMBI data showed.
"Biggest gap" - I presume that's raw numbers. As overall production is still increasing, that should surprise precisely nobody who is paying attention.
A much better indicator is where it stands percentagewise compared to prior first-month-of-quarter production and deliveries. That 16k vehicles is just 18% of the monthly production rate. So, 5 days of production didn't get delivered yet (presuming they're working 7 days a week.) Doesn't seem like much to me.
Anyone know how much longer it takes to ship and deliver cars from Shanghai to Europe instead of delivering inside China?
maybe just quietly root for Tesla to succeed for all our sakes.
Major derail here, but consider the value proposition of the 2023 Toyota Prius. The traditional dorky box shape has been replaced with the lines of a sports car, and the new design looks a lot like a Model 3. The price is about half what a Model 3 costs, and there is no need to plan road trips around charging stations. At 57mpg, the cost of gasoline is a non-concern.
https://pressroom.toyota.com/hybrid-reborn-2023-toyota-prius-revealed/ (https://pressroom.toyota.com/hybrid-reborn-2023-toyota-prius-revealed/)
Obviously, this car appeals to a cheapskate like me more than a Model 3 because it will cost tens of thousands of dollars less to own than a Model 3 (see Edmunds TCO for past models). I acknowledge my mentality differs from the average new car buyer who is mostly concerned with looks and prestige, but we might see a swing toward pragmatism with high interest rates and job insecurity.
Major derail here, but consider the value proposition of the 2023 Toyota Prius. The traditional dorky box shape has been replaced with the lines of a sports car, and the new design looks a lot like a Model 3. The price is about half what a Model 3 costs, and there is no need to plan road trips around charging stations. At 57mpg, the cost of gasoline is a non-concern.
https://pressroom.toyota.com/hybrid-reborn-2023-toyota-prius-revealed/ (https://pressroom.toyota.com/hybrid-reborn-2023-toyota-prius-revealed/)
Obviously, this car appeals to a cheapskate like me more than a Model 3 because it will cost tens of thousands of dollars less to own than a Model 3 (see Edmunds TCO for past models). I acknowledge my mentality differs from the average new car buyer who is mostly concerned with looks and prestige, but we might see a swing toward pragmatism with high interest rates and job insecurity.
Eh, pretty dumb looking. Old one was fine IMO. Does it look like they slope the back down more in this version? Why would you do that? Just reduces the cargo space for no reason. I don't think it would help much to maintain laminar flow either?
If anything I don't see why they didn't build on the prius V instead; the "wagon" design is superior as you get more storage in same footprint, minimal extra cost, and almost the same fuel economy. In general, I honestly don't see any advantages to sedans, so don't know why they make them? Is the air resistance that much better or something? What am I missing...
Major derail here, but consider the value proposition of the 2023 Toyota Prius. The traditional dorky box shape has been replaced with the lines of a sports car, and the new design looks a lot like a Model 3. The price is about half what a Model 3 costs, and there is no need to plan road trips around charging stations. At 57mpg, the cost of gasoline is a non-concern.
https://pressroom.toyota.com/hybrid-reborn-2023-toyota-prius-revealed/ (https://pressroom.toyota.com/hybrid-reborn-2023-toyota-prius-revealed/)
Obviously, this car appeals to a cheapskate like me more than a Model 3 because it will cost tens of thousands of dollars less to own than a Model 3 (see Edmunds TCO for past models). I acknowledge my mentality differs from the average new car buyer who is mostly concerned with looks and prestige, but we might see a swing toward pragmatism with high interest rates and job insecurity.
Eh, pretty dumb looking. Old one was fine IMO. Does it look like they slope the back down more in this version? Why would you do that? Just reduces the cargo space for no reason. I don't think it would help much to maintain laminar flow either?
If anything I don't see why they didn't build on the prius V instead; the "wagon" design is superior as you get more storage in same footprint, minimal extra cost, and almost the same fuel economy. In general, I honestly don't see any advantages to sedans, so don't know why they make them? Is the air resistance that much better or something? What am I missing...
There's a bumper sticker I've seen on Priuses around town.
------------------
"Cool car." -- No one
------------------
Toyota bz4x EV is getting pretty bad reviews.
Major derail here, but consider the value proposition of the 2023 Toyota Prius. The traditional dorky box shape has been replaced with the lines of a sports car, and the new design looks a lot like a Model 3. The price is about half what a Model 3 costs, and there is no need to plan road trips around charging stations. At 57mpg, the cost of gasoline is a non-concern.
https://pressroom.toyota.com/hybrid-reborn-2023-toyota-prius-revealed/ (https://pressroom.toyota.com/hybrid-reborn-2023-toyota-prius-revealed/)
Obviously, this car appeals to a cheapskate like me more than a Model 3 because it will cost tens of thousands of dollars less to own than a Model 3 (see Edmunds TCO for past models). I acknowledge my mentality differs from the average new car buyer who is mostly concerned with looks and prestige, but we might see a swing toward pragmatism with high interest rates and job insecurity.
Eh, pretty dumb looking. Old one was fine IMO. Does it look like they slope the back down more in this version? Why would you do that? Just reduces the cargo space for no reason. I don't think it would help much to maintain laminar flow either?
If anything I don't see why they didn't build on the prius V instead; the "wagon" design is superior as you get more storage in same footprint, minimal extra cost, and almost the same fuel economy. In general, I honestly don't see any advantages to sedans, so don't know why they make them? Is the air resistance that much better or something? What am I missing...
Toyota bz4x EV is getting pretty bad reviews.
how so? First I pulled up was 7.5/10
https://www.caranddriver.com/toyota/bz4x
or 4.3/5 at KBB.
Seems pretty ok (above average) to me?
It seems crazy expensive to me at $42k+ for a small SUV, but that's about normal EV prices.. You'd have to drive a ton to ever make it back in saved gas though.
Once you're past age of ~22 most people realize how stupid it is to worry about this!
Once you're past age of ~22 most people realize how stupid it is to worry about this!
General public buying habits strongly disagree. Pontiac Aztec didn't flop because of lack of features!
Major derail here, but consider the value proposition of the 2023 Toyota Prius. The traditional dorky box shape has been replaced with the lines of a sports car, and the new design looks a lot like a Model 3. The price is about half what a Model 3 costs, and there is no need to plan road trips around charging stations. At 57mpg, the cost of gasoline is a non-concern.
https://pressroom.toyota.com/hybrid-reborn-2023-toyota-prius-revealed/ (https://pressroom.toyota.com/hybrid-reborn-2023-toyota-prius-revealed/)
Obviously, this car appeals to a cheapskate like me more than a Model 3 because it will cost tens of thousands of dollars less to own than a Model 3 (see Edmunds TCO for past models). I acknowledge my mentality differs from the average new car buyer who is mostly concerned with looks and prestige, but we might see a swing toward pragmatism with high interest rates and job insecurity.
Buying a car based on looks will always be absurd to me. It's a tool, as important as how "cool" my screwdrivers are.. I pick the features I need, then which car fits that best. Then take whichever color is in the nearest carmax..
Buying a car based on looks will always be absurd to me. It's a tool, as important as how "cool" my screwdrivers are.. I pick the features I need, then which car fits that best. Then take whichever color is in the nearest carmax..
It's almost as if you think that stance is......cool?
Buying a car based on looks will always be absurd to me. It's a tool, as important as how "cool" my screwdrivers are.. I pick the features I need, then which car fits that best. Then take whichever color is in the nearest carmax..
It's almost as if you think that stance is......cool?
Yeah, and regardless of Scandium's personal views, it's pretty clear that having a good looking product goes a long way for the general public. I personally share Scandium's view (in that I love form over function), but I do not project that preference to other people's buying habits.
Buying a car based on looks will always be absurd to me. It's a tool, as important as how "cool" my screwdrivers are.. I pick the features I need, then which car fits that best. Then take whichever color is in the nearest carmax..
It's almost as if you think that stance is......cool?
Yeah, and regardless of Scandium's personal views, it's pretty clear that having a good looking product goes a long way for the general public. I personally share Scandium's view (in that I love form over function), but I do not project that preference to other people's buying habits.
Did you mean function over form? Otherwise I am confused!
The Aztec flopped compared to projected sales. Projected sales had already accounted for brand perception. This is also clear when compared to the Buick Rondesvous, which is a re-skinned Aztec that sold twice as many per year for twice as long. Mainly because it didn't look weird. I can't believe that I have to point this out as it's basically a meme at this point, but:
https://carsalesbase.com/us-buick-rendezvous/
https://www.autotrader.com/car-news/buick-rendezvous-was-better-looking-successful-aztek-281474979970896
Tesla Semi looks like a GREAT product, but I was disappointed in the lack of information from the presentation. What's the actual price now? Didn't confirm production targets for 2023. When can others begin placing deposits for it again? What about autopilot or platooning?
Anyway, the other things they said were great:
500 mile range maxed out at 82,000 lbs
Cold brakes on declines because of regen
1 MW+ Charging infrastructure with new cable. Once V4 infrastructure is built out, long haul will be easy to achieve for the motor, but the cab is not designed for long haul. They will need a new cab set up for long haul when V4 is built out.
1,000 Volt architecture
>2 kwh per mile. So if a 1 Mwh pack, $120,000 for just that pack cost?
Cybertruck can use V4 and will also have the 1,000 volt architecture. Could assume 250 mile real range while hauling with a Cybertruck (500 mile standalone). 1 MW charger would get it to 80% in minutes.
Handed them over to Customers
The $40k IRA credit for EV semi trucks will be a big incentive in the new few years as the V4 infrastructure builds out.
...Also, good for rental companies like Penske if they buy them for rentals down the road. Two things happened to me renting a big diesel truck to move equipment when my old employer purchased a location.
A. The engine wasn't charged overnight and I had to sit there for an hour while it warmed up. Engine couldn't start in the cold.
B. Dummies like me won't fill the coolant tank with diesel fuel so Penske techs won't have come drain and refill the system. Just a supercharger cable.
>2 kwh per mile. So if a 1 Mwh pack, $120,000 for just that pack cost?1.7 kWh/mile.
>2 kwh per mile. So if a 1 Mwh pack, $120,000 for just that pack cost?1.7 kWh/mile.
The question is whether Tesla will continue to grow the top line quickly while simultaneously maintaining 8X industry margins in a near future when customers have many possible choices, such as a $34k Chevy Equinox BEV or Hyundai Kona BEV. An economist might say these new market entrants will break the monopolist's pricing power and force margins toward equilibrium.
The same way you get most important Tesla information - an offhanded tweet.>2 kwh per mile. So if a 1 Mwh pack, $120,000 for just that pack cost?1.7 kWh/mile.
Whoops, <2. How did you get 1.7? They didn’t say.
The question is whether Tesla will continue to grow the top line quickly while simultaneously maintaining 8X industry margins in a near future when customers have many possible choices, such as a $34k Chevy Equinox BEV or Hyundai Kona BEV. An economist might say these new market entrants will break the monopolist's pricing power and force margins toward equilibrium.
What signs would we expect to see if Tesla's monopoly power was being eroded and if their margins are on he way down toward industry norms?
-price cuts
-production of lower-end models
-advertising
Suddenly, we're seeing price cuts: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/tesla-just-lowered-prices-for-model-3-and-model-y-but-only-if-you-buy-this-month/ar-AA14PAtz (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/tesla-just-lowered-prices-for-model-3-and-model-y-but-only-if-you-buy-this-month/ar-AA14PAtz)
The same way you get most important Tesla information - an offhanded tweet.>2 kwh per mile. So if a 1 Mwh pack, $120,000 for just that pack cost?1.7 kWh/mile.
Whoops, <2. How did you get 1.7? They didn’t say.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1598631136980131843
The same way you get most important Tesla information - an offhanded tweet.>2 kwh per mile. So if a 1 Mwh pack, $120,000 for just that pack cost?1.7 kWh/mile.
Whoops, <2. How did you get 1.7? They didn’t say.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1598631136980131843
Haha, touche.
Yeah, the $3250 discount for inventory is clearly to offset demand lag for the $7500 tax credit. I agree with the general signs, but I don't think this one qualifies because a major tax legislation in its space starts Jan 1.
The same way you get most important Tesla information - an offhanded tweet.>2 kwh per mile. So if a 1 Mwh pack, $120,000 for just that pack cost?1.7 kWh/mile.
Whoops, <2. How did you get 1.7? They didn’t say.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1598631136980131843
Haha, touche. At 1.7, seems like it's ~900kwh pack.
Yeah, the $3250 discount for inventory is clearly to offset demand lag for the $7500 tax credit. I agree with the general signs to look out for if cost declines also stopped, but I don't think this one qualifies because a major tax legislation in its space starts Jan 1. Also, still don't agree about Monopoly power.
The question is whether Tesla will continue to grow the top line quickly while simultaneously maintaining 8X industry margins in a near future when customers have many possible choices, such as a $34k Chevy Equinox BEV or Hyundai Kona BEV. An economist might say these new market entrants will break the monopolist's pricing power and force margins toward equilibrium.
What signs would we expect to see if Tesla's monopoly power was being eroded and if their margins are on he way down toward industry norms?
-price cuts
-production of lower-end models
-advertising
Suddenly, we're seeing price cuts: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/tesla-just-lowered-prices-for-model-3-and-model-y-but-only-if-you-buy-this-month/ar-AA14PAtz (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/tesla-just-lowered-prices-for-model-3-and-model-y-but-only-if-you-buy-this-month/ar-AA14PAtz)
It's the last month before a $7,500 tax credit kicks in, and it appears to be solely a cut in price for inventory cars - which they always try to clear at the end of a quarter one way or another. A custom ordered Model 3 for delivery in December is still listed as starting around $47k.
I wouldn't read too much into it unless we see meaningful cuts in 1Q.
...Also, good for rental companies like Penske if they buy them for rentals down the road. Two things happened to me renting a big diesel truck to move equipment when my old employer purchased a location.
A. The engine wasn't charged overnight and I had to sit there for an hour while it warmed up. Engine couldn't start in the cold.
B. Dummies like me won't fill the coolant tank with diesel fuel so Penske techs won't have come drain and refill the system. Just a supercharger cable.
The Aztec flopped compared to projected sales. Projected sales had already accounted for brand perception. This is also clear when compared to the Buick Rondesvous, which is a re-skinned Aztec that sold twice as many per year for twice as long. Mainly because it didn't look weird. I can't believe that I have to point this out as it's basically a meme at this point, but:
https://carsalesbase.com/us-buick-rendezvous/
https://www.autotrader.com/car-news/buick-rendezvous-was-better-looking-successful-aztek-281474979970896
Per that article, that's not a reskin; the Buick has ditched the sloped rear, so more cargo space in same footprint (and probably ~mpg). And has a 3rd row seat! That's a massive functional difference! Car-nerds love to shit on anything that's not sufficiently "broh kewl!" and penis-extending enough, so I don't trust their opinions on anything.
That said; yes I do recognize that a (frighteningly) large part of the public are emotion-driven morons who will pay for unnecessary bling over and over. That's kind of the basis for this website..
The Aztec flopped compared to projected sales. Projected sales had already accounted for brand perception. This is also clear when compared to the Buick Rondesvous, which is a re-skinned Aztec that sold twice as many per year for twice as long. Mainly because it didn't look weird. I can't believe that I have to point this out as it's basically a meme at this point, but:
https://carsalesbase.com/us-buick-rendezvous/
https://www.autotrader.com/car-news/buick-rendezvous-was-better-looking-successful-aztek-281474979970896
Per that article, that's not a reskin; the Buick has ditched the sloped rear, so more cargo space in same footprint (and probably ~mpg). And has a 3rd row seat! That's a massive functional difference! Car-nerds love to shit on anything that's not sufficiently "broh kewl!" and penis-extending enough, so I don't trust their opinions on anything.
That said; yes I do recognize that a (frighteningly) large part of the public are emotion-driven morons who will pay for unnecessary bling over and over. That's kind of the basis for this website..
The most aerodynamically efficient shape is basically a raindrop, with a rounded leading edge tapering to a point. That's why so many modern vehicles are shaped with sloping rears (including Teslas). The Aztec's sloped rear resulted in improved aerodynamics and 1mpg better fuel economy on the highway compared to the Rendezvous.
I'd say that the biggest reason for Tesla's sales success is that they were the first to make EVs aspirational. They look better than previous EVs. They perform better than EVs had up to that point. They had more range than EVs had up to that point.
Reality is that people are more likely to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on personal transport if they like something about the appearance or how it makes them look to others. They're more than just tools for transport.
And on the theme of the Semi, that potential customer is almost the complete opposite of the lizard brained personal vehicle buyer. Fleets ONLY care about the utility and financial viability of the trucks they run. 0-60 times, luxury features, etc have no value to the people buying them, so they'll need to start sharing more details like the actual weight of the truck, and the pricing.
And on the theme of the Semi, that potential customer is almost the complete opposite of the lizard brained personal vehicle buyer. Fleets ONLY care about the utility and financial viability of the trucks they run. 0-60 times, luxury features, etc have no value to the people buying them, so they'll need to start sharing more details like the actual weight of the truck, and the pricing.
Yeah, I’ve seen estimates of over $500,000 in just energy costs over the million mile lifespan.
https://youtu.be/Uv44W7xa4IU (https://youtu.be/Uv44W7xa4IU)
Before other maintenance. (Semi trucks burn through brakes.) The 2019 price was on par with diesel trucks for the most part, but it has to be much more expensive now. The $40k tax credit will offset some. Nikola Insider estimates of 27,000 lbs for the truck and 2,000 lighter than the Nikola Tre.
I haven’t seen any other EV class 8 models with over 300 mile range and those advertise charging in 90 minutes. With Tesla doing 500 miles and 400 miles charged in 30 minutes, it’s Utility on day trips looks far superior than Freightliner and Nikola.
Tesla invented another charging standard for this. Those types of things are the competitive advantage not looks or monopoly or whatever.
The question is whether Tesla will continue to grow the top line quickly while simultaneously maintaining 8X industry margins in a near future when customers have many possible choices, such as a $34k Chevy Equinox BEV or Hyundai Kona BEV. An economist might say these new market entrants will break the monopolist's pricing power and force margins toward equilibrium.
What signs would we expect to see if Tesla's monopoly power was being eroded and if their margins are on he way down toward industry norms?
-price cuts
-production of lower-end models
-advertising
Suddenly, we're seeing price cuts: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/tesla-just-lowered-prices-for-model-3-and-model-y-but-only-if-you-buy-this-month/ar-AA14PAtz (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/tesla-just-lowered-prices-for-model-3-and-model-y-but-only-if-you-buy-this-month/ar-AA14PAtz)
It's the last month before a $7,500 tax credit kicks in, and it appears to be solely a cut in price for inventory cars - which they always try to clear at the end of a quarter one way or another. A custom ordered Model 3 for delivery in December is still listed as starting around $47k.
I wouldn't read too much into it unless we see meaningful cuts in 1Q.
So ChpBstrd’s new proof of demand issues is Tesla selling cars at a small discount (~5%) for one month, in one country and just before a $7,500 tax credit returns for Tesla vehicles. The wall is pretty slippery, but by all means keep throwing, something might stick eventually.
Curious, what does your crystal ball say a $7,500 discount (tax credit) from current pricing will do for Tesla demand going forward?
250 miles isn’t close to full day of driving and 90 minutes is a substantial part of a work day. Wouldn’t 500 be more useful even for short haul and 30 min charge to hand off the truck to another driver if running? Utility speaking.
Funny you mention this because I was thinking about how a BEV would be perfect for yard switching due to the low number of miles and completely contained ecosystem. They're like airport tugs (which also should be BEV).250 miles isn’t close to full day of driving and 90 minutes is a substantial part of a work day. Wouldn’t 500 be more useful even for short haul and 30 min charge to hand off the truck to another driver if running? Utility speaking.
What I'm saying is that for most of the ways that a "Day cab" is used, 250 miles is adequate for a full day's work. They're doing smaller local routes going from warehouse to warehouse, doing delivery/drop off along predetermined routes like Pepsi trucks, or handling drayage in ports, etc. They have predictable travel habits in a given radius. They're not knocking down thousands of miles per week or running around the clock. They do their daily tasks and then sit unused for long periods (nights/weekends). The drivers of these trucks won't be on the clock while they're charging very often. There may be a few applications like you describe, but they're not common. Maybe the Tesla will cause trucking companies to rethink their approach. But there would have to be very convincing financial justification.
The existing OEMs didn't all just accidentally stumble onto short range only applications for BEV trucks. They've been selling trucks to these customers for decades and know their customers' needs pretty well. It's also a big reason why the existing OEMs haven't continued to invest much more into battery tech for longer range applications, and have chosen instead to invest in hydrogen for those difficult duty cycles. Whether one tech ends up winning out over the other, or if they coexist long term is anybody's guess, but hydrogen has more money and people around the globe being invested into it every day, including lots of governments. Long range battery semis aren't seeing the same investment scale.
Tesla wouldn't miss the chance to tout their product's capabilities for marketing purposes, so the fact that the weight and price haven't been disclosed seems dubious to me. Time will tell.
Meanwhile, a company nobody outside of commercial trucking has ever heard of recently delivered their 500th BEV semi tractor:
https://www.fleetequipmentmag.com/orange-ev-electric-heavy-duty-truck/
250 miles could be adequate. For smaller trucks, yes. Class 8, I’m not sure. How do you know, Paperchaser? I’d say it’s likely existing OEMs stumbled into short range based on previous EV efforts and supply chain for batteries and charging.
250 miles could be adequate. For smaller trucks, yes. Class 8, I’m not sure. How do you know, Paperchaser? I’d say it’s likely existing OEMs stumbled into short range based on previous EV efforts and supply chain for batteries and charging.
Without doxxing myself completely, I work in R&D for a global OEM that's centered around providing powertrains for commercial vehicles. On-highway trucking in North America is a very large piece of that pie. We unveiled a BEV semi platform before the Tesla Semi was originally shown back in 2017. Our product portfolio currently includes ICE with multiple fuels (and more on the way), hybrid, PHEV, and BEV power, as well as hydrogen fuel cells.
You can therefore consider me to be a bit biased I suppose, but I also probably know more about the nuances of this sector than your average internet commenter too. I interact with executives from lots of commercial OEMs several times per year, so I hear what does and does not work for them, what their concerns are, and I see what they're indicating interest in for the future and how they spend their money.
What has been clarified for me in recent years is that the carbon neutral future of work is going to require different options for different jobs. People see big semis or other work vehicles and assume that because they all currently use diesel that there will be one energy source for all work in the future but different options that are optimized for different jobs or duty cycles will get us carbon neutral much sooner than putting all of our chips into the BEV basket. Batteries currently work pretty well for buses and short range stuff like the Orange yard hauler I linked. And the BEV pilot testing programs that I'm aware of for many other machines and duty cycles have been very mixed.
A 27k lb day cab with 500 miles of range might work for a few fleets right now. It might even be ideal for a couple**. But in my opinion it's not likely to be a game changer for all of the trucking market as they currently use their products which is the way it's being marketed and presented in the media. A less expensive option with lower weight and shorter range would probably be received better by fleet managers due to improved cost of ownership and broader appeal.
**Note that one of the Tesla Semis shown for Pepsi was displayed with Frito~Lay markings (FL is a Pepsi subsidiary). It's going to haul loads of lightweight snacks, so the weight of the cab is less critical. But Pepsico also hauls much heavier loads full of beverages, which might require a truck cab that's not so heavy. Having options isn't a bad thing, but it illustrates that there isn't really a one-size fits all solution, even within the same company doing the same basic trips because the size and weight of the loads and the specifics of the routes can vary so much.
Meanwhile, a company nobody outside of commercial trucking has ever heard of recently delivered their 500th BEV semi tractor:Funny you mention this because I was thinking about how a BEV would be perfect for yard switching due to the low number of miles and completely contained ecosystem. They're like airport tugs (which also should be BEV).
https://www.fleetequipmentmag.com/orange-ev-electric-heavy-duty-truck/
Worth noting that those Orange yard trucks never leave property so not really the same market as Tesla. Top speed on them is 25mph.
Without doxxing myself completely, I work in R&D for a global OEM that's centered around providing powertrains for commercial vehicles. On-highway trucking in North America is a very large piece of that pie. We unveiled a BEV semi platform before the Tesla Semi was originally shown back in 2017. Our product portfolio currently includes ICE with multiple fuels (and more on the way), hybrid, PHEV, and BEV power, as well as hydrogen fuel cells.Nice that your company is working on a range of options for the transition.
Without doxxing myself completely, I work in R&D for a global OEM that's centered around providing powertrains for commercial vehicles. On-highway trucking in North America is a very large piece of that pie. We unveiled a BEV semi platform before the Tesla Semi was originally shown back in 2017. Our product portfolio currently includes ICE with multiple fuels (and more on the way), hybrid, PHEV, and BEV power, as well as hydrogen fuel cells.
You can therefore consider me to be a bit biased I suppose, but I also probably know more about the nuances of this sector than your average internet commenter too. I interact with executives from lots of commercial OEMs several times per year, so I hear what does and does not work for them, what their concerns are, and I see what they're indicating interest in for the future and how they spend their money.
Out of curiosity, where do you see the new dividing lines being drawn between fuel types, product lines, and how big is the market for each? I don't even know the right terms to use, so I guess I'll ask you see the market share for various fuel types looking like a decade from now?
Without doxxing myself completely, I work in R&D for a global OEM that's centered around providing powertrains for commercial vehicles. On-highway trucking in North America is a very large piece of that pie. We unveiled a BEV semi platform before the Tesla Semi was originally shown back in 2017. Our product portfolio currently includes ICE with multiple fuels (and more on the way), hybrid, PHEV, and BEV power, as well as hydrogen fuel cells.
You can therefore consider me to be a bit biased I suppose, but I also probably know more about the nuances of this sector than your average internet commenter too. I interact with executives from lots of commercial OEMs several times per year, so I hear what does and does not work for them, what their concerns are, and I see what they're indicating interest in for the future and how they spend their money.
Biased or not, that’s some seriously relevant experience to the concept. Tesla Odd Duck Semi it is! I appreciate your input. Tesla aims to produce 50,000 per year from the line. ~$12 billion in revenue. Not a massive part of the business but my expectations of the line is tempered a bit. Since 50,000 is about 25% of the Class 8 market in the US, that’s a significant capture of the market. If you’re right, that’s probably too high and they would have to export a good amount of those to sell them all.
A less expensive option with lower weight and shorter range would probably be received better by fleet managers due to improved cost of ownership and broader appeal.
Found this chart and thought it would be useful to the excellent commercial EV vehicle discussion above. Obviously, it’s hard to put this chart fully into context without pricing for each vehicle, but it is clear to me Tesla has achieved breakthroughs in range, charging time and kWh/mile efficiency. In turn, those advantages would justify a higher sales price because the premium would easily be recouped over time in a fleet vehicle and fleet managers aren’t concerned about up-front cost, only cost per mile over the life of the vehicle.
Good discussion on the use case for a 500 mile EV semi. Certainly, no expert myself in this area. I understand the vehicles needed are going to be varied as the tasks they perform. I will only say that if Tesla has tackled range, efficiency and charging rate (as the chart suggests), then it seems offering vehicles with different specs (battery size, weight, cab vs no cab, etc.) is very doable and is just a matter of scaling up or perhaps licensing.
I think starting with a Class 8 semi does the same thing for commercial EV adoption that the roadster and Model S did for personal transport. It’s a proof of concept. If you can do long haul trucking with heavy loads it instantly sends the message that EV isn’t a niche vehicle with limited uses or utility.
Found this chart and thought it would be useful to the excellent commercial EV vehicle discussion above. Obviously, it’s hard to put this chart fully into context without pricing for each vehicle, but it is clear to me Tesla has achieved breakthroughs in range, charging time and kWh/mile efficiency. In turn, those advantages would justify a higher sales price because the premium would easily be recouped over time in a fleet vehicle and fleet managers aren’t concerned about up-front cost, only cost per mile over the life of the vehicle.
Good discussion on the use case for a 500 mile EV semi. Certainly, no expert myself in this area. I understand the vehicles needed are going to be varied as the tasks they perform. I will only say that if Tesla has tackled range, efficiency and charging rate (as the chart suggests), then it seems offering vehicles with different specs (battery size, weight, cab vs no cab, etc.) is very doable and is just a matter of scaling up or perhaps licensing.
I think starting with a Class 8 semi does the same thing for commercial EV adoption that the roadster and Model S did for personal transport. It’s a proof of concept. If you can do long haul trucking with heavy loads it instantly sends the message that EV isn’t a niche vehicle with limited uses or utility.
I want to caution that while $/mi is critical for this segment, so are initial price, downtime, serviceability, and total lifespan. If something breaks on the road, it needs to be repaired quickly and easily to get the freight moving. Service and support networks are critical. And the whole truck has to be designed and screwed together well enough to last for many hundreds of thousands of miles of traversing crap roads at highway speeds. These should be strong suits for BEV semis, but it remains to be seen if they actually are once used in the field. And of course weight can be a factor as well. With heavier trucks potentially moving less freight in a given trip, it can mean that more trucks (and drivers) are needed to move the same amount of freight in a given time period (cost per ton-mile goes up).
Also, the efficiency calculation for the Freightliner eCascadia shown in the chart is incorrect. Using their kwh/mi of range formula, it should be 438/230= 1.90 which is obviously still worse than what Elon tweeted, but is significantly better than how it's presented.
Reuters published a story that Tesla China was cutting Model Y production by 20% due to domestic demand. 3 hours later numerous sources have said it's false. Amazing how quick Reuters publishes information without checking sources. Tesla China sold 100,291 units in November, a far and away record.
so tesla down sharply, seems related to switzerland limiting EV traffic.
I'm confused about this course of action, how switzerland benefits from limiting EV traffic, is anyone in the know?
so tesla down sharply, seems related to switzerland limiting EV traffic.
I'm confused about this course of action, how switzerland benefits from limiting EV traffic, is anyone in the know?
so tesla down sharply, seems related to switzerland limiting EV traffic.
I'm confused about this course of action, how switzerland benefits from limiting EV traffic, is anyone in the know?
Most of the articles are pretty clear about the reasoning as far as I can find
1) It's not a ban in effect yet, just proposed
2) It's temporary, in that it is a measure to save energy during an energy crisis in Europe (read: unlikely to be correlated with stock prices)
3) Natural Gas is used in generation to make electricity, and they are strained most for natural gas. Limiting how much natural gas is burned to power cars makes it more available for more critical infrastructure and direct heat. Presumably this would be taking into account that gasoline supply is less critical to maintain over the course of the winter,
A more balanced view I heard from someone familiar with the industry was that car companies do this all the time: slow production while waiting for a part, or to match demand. Even if Tesla does slow the plant by 0% to 25%, it can be temporary and not an indication of production over the months ahead.
Tesla's P/E ratio is 52 on Yahoo Finance and 60 on Morningstar. If 2023 starts bearish, expect TSLA stock to continue falling faster than the market (-48% YTD versus -13% for S&P 500).
Tesla's P/E ratio is 52 on Yahoo Finance and 60 on Morningstar. If 2023 starts bearish, expect TSLA stock to continue falling faster than the market (-48% YTD versus -13% for S&P 500).
Tesla's P/E ratio is 52 on Yahoo Finance and 60 on Morningstar. If 2023 starts bearish, expect TSLA stock to continue falling faster than the market (-48% YTD versus -13% for S&P 500).
Tangent: trailing 12 month EPS is a pretty straightforward calculation. Yahoo is right on GAAP earnings. What is up with Morningstar? It’s a joke to be that wrong with 2022 technology. Is it using some other calculation I’m not aware of?
Morningstar shows 56.43 P/E ratio and 33.56 forward P/E ratio.Tesla's P/E ratio is 52 on Yahoo Finance and 60 on Morningstar. If 2023 starts bearish, expect TSLA stock to continue falling faster than the market (-48% YTD versus -13% for S&P 500).Tesla's forward looking PE currently sits around 35. The company that will grow 40-45% YOY for 2022 and will grow another 45-50% YOY in 2023 as Berlin and Austin ramp and cybertruck rolls out. If the stock price stays where it sits right now, the forward PE coming out of Q4 will be in the 20s and by the end of Q1 2023, likely in the high teens. It’s a contest between negative “sentiment” versus results. Results should eventually win out and move the stock price higher.
Morningstar shows 56.43 P/E ratio and 33.56 forward P/E ratio.Tesla's P/E ratio is 52 on Yahoo Finance and 60 on Morningstar. If 2023 starts bearish, expect TSLA stock to continue falling faster than the market (-48% YTD versus -13% for S&P 500).Tesla's forward looking PE currently sits around 35. The company that will grow 40-45% YOY for 2022 and will grow another 45-50% YOY in 2023 as Berlin and Austin ramp and cybertruck rolls out. If the stock price stays where it sits right now, the forward PE coming out of Q4 will be in the 20s and by the end of Q1 2023, likely in the high teens. It’s a contest between negative “sentiment” versus results. Results should eventually win out and move the stock price higher.
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnas/tsla/valuation
Stock market losses in 2022 are not just "negative sentiment". Ford (P/E of 6, fwd P/E 7) fell 33% YTD compared to TSLA's 48%. With a 5x higher PE Tesla is only falling 1.5x as far. And if market conditions turn worse in 2023, it again won't matter how well Tesla is growing - it will take another hit, just as it did in 2022.
Morningstar shows 56.43 P/E ratio and 33.56 forward P/E ratio.Tesla's P/E ratio is 52 on Yahoo Finance and 60 on Morningstar. If 2023 starts bearish, expect TSLA stock to continue falling faster than the market (-48% YTD versus -13% for S&P 500).Tesla's forward looking PE currently sits around 35. The company that will grow 40-45% YOY for 2022 and will grow another 45-50% YOY in 2023 as Berlin and Austin ramp and cybertruck rolls out. If the stock price stays where it sits right now, the forward PE coming out of Q4 will be in the 20s and by the end of Q1 2023, likely in the high teens. It’s a contest between negative “sentiment” versus results. Results should eventually win out and move the stock price higher.
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnas/tsla/valuation
Stock market losses in 2022 are not just "negative sentiment". Ford (P/E of 6, fwd P/E 7) fell 33% YTD compared to TSLA's 48%. With a 5x higher PE Tesla is only falling 1.5x as far. And if market conditions turn worse in 2023, it again won't matter how well Tesla is growing - it will take another hit, just as it did in 2022.
I’m not talking about about broad market sentiment. The sentiment around Tesla is negative because of Twitter nonsense that has nothing to do with Tesla performance and FUD around demand issues.
Ford sales for November were their lowest in 13 years. Tesla is growing around 45% YOY. Let’s not pretend Tesla SP should somehow be linked to legacy auto.
You really think a growth company increasing sales 40-50% YOY and a forward PE in the teens (after Q1 if no change in SP) should simply move with the broader market? Why invest in any stock if all they do is move in lock-step with the market. There’s a disconnect between the performance and financials of Tesla and the SP that will eventually have to get rectified.
"a forward PE in the teens ... if no change in SP"? How is that a factual statement?Morningstar shows 56.43 P/E ratio and 33.56 forward P/E ratio.Tesla's P/E ratio is 52 on Yahoo Finance and 60 on Morningstar. If 2023 starts bearish, expect TSLA stock to continue falling faster than the market (-48% YTD versus -13% for S&P 500).Tesla's forward looking PE currently sits around 35. The company that will grow 40-45% YOY for 2022 and will grow another 45-50% YOY in 2023 as Berlin and Austin ramp and cybertruck rolls out. If the stock price stays where it sits right now, the forward PE coming out of Q4 will be in the 20s and by the end of Q1 2023, likely in the high teens. It’s a contest between negative “sentiment” versus results. Results should eventually win out and move the stock price higher.
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnas/tsla/valuation
Stock market losses in 2022 are not just "negative sentiment". Ford (P/E of 6, fwd P/E 7) fell 33% YTD compared to TSLA's 48%. With a 5x higher PE Tesla is only falling 1.5x as far. And if market conditions turn worse in 2023, it again won't matter how well Tesla is growing - it will take another hit, just as it did in 2022.
I’m not talking about about broad market sentiment. The sentiment around Tesla is negative because of Twitter nonsense that has nothing to do with Tesla performance and FUD around demand issues.
Ford sales for November were their lowest in 13 years. Tesla is growing around 45% YOY. Let’s not pretend Tesla SP should somehow be linked to legacy auto.
You really think a growth company increasing sales 40-50% YOY and a forward PE in the teens (after Q1 if no change in SP) should simply move with the broader market? Why invest in any stock if all they do is move in lock-step with the market. There’s a disconnect between the performance and financials of Tesla and the SP that will eventually have to get rectified.
One thing on the twitter I'm uncertain of, it all seems focused on US politics. Are other countries impacted on the negative sentiments? Seems like there are certain elements that may impact globally, but certainly not the whole thing.
My personal forward P/E for 2023 is 19. Remember when Morningstar's Forward P/E for 2022 was well over 100? Even with TSLA at all time highs, that was way off. I'd take any future valuation factory number with a grain of salt. They aren't doing the research. TBF, 33.56 is certainly going to be closer, but I wouldn't hang my hat on it.Yahoo Finance, Morningstar, Y-charts all have TSLA price/earnings of 55-60. While you're picking on Morningstar, there doesn't seem to be big differences between those three - with Mornigstar having the median P/E value of 56. To me it makes more sense to trust their data than someone's "personal forward P/E".
My personal forward P/E for 2023 is 19. Remember when Morningstar's Forward P/E for 2022 was well over 100? Even with TSLA at all time highs, that was way off. I'd take any future valuation factory number with a grain of salt. They aren't doing the research. TBF, 33.56 is certainly going to be closer, but I wouldn't hang my hat on it.Yahoo Finance, Morningstar, Y-charts all have TSLA price/earnings of 55-60. While you're picking on Morningstar, there doesn't seem to be big differences between those three - with Mornigstar having the median P/E value of 56. To me it makes more sense to trust their data than someone's "personal forward P/E".
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/key-statistics?p=TSLA
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnas/tsla/valuation
https://ycharts.com/companies/TSLA/pe_ratio
One thing on the twitter I'm uncertain of, it all seems focused on US politics. Are other countries impacted on the negative sentiments? Seems like there are certain elements that may impact globally, but certainly not the whole thing.
The issues with Twitter, at their base, are inherent to the attention economy. Twitters (and social media in general) primary goal as a platform is to keep people engaged. The more users and engagement it has, the better. The quality of the engagement does not matter as a base metric. Algorithms are designed to increase engagement. As a side effect, our base human condition and psychology is drawn to outrage more than anything else. We engage way more (dislikes, comments, screen time) with offensive news than we do with good news. This in turn creates a lot of very riled up people who start to create "us vs them" groups who otherwise wouldn't have such a controversial view of the world. Being that it's a psychological phenomenon, to the extent that other countries are on SM they are susceptible. It's the primary reason I don't think anyone can "fix" Twitter without being overridden by another social media company with less noble goals.
This is a long winded way of saying that the inherent design of Twitter (and social media) makes their issues just as prominent globally as they are in the US. There are extremist groups popping up all over the world.
Back to Tesla, I can definitely see the enthusiasm for the brand if one watches the various youtube videos on Tesla tech (large castings, etc), and I even recall Munro live early episodes criticizing Tesla production. I haven't check in in awhile, they sure have changed their tune! Pretty exciting stuff. Still not sure how that translates to 10x valuation of Ford or GM for the general public, but I can see the appeal.
My personal forward P/E for 2023 is 19. Remember when Morningstar's Forward P/E for 2022 was well over 100? Even with TSLA at all time highs, that was way off. I'd take any future valuation factory number with a grain of salt. They aren't doing the research. TBF, 33.56 is certainly going to be closer, but I wouldn't hang my hat on it.Yahoo Finance, Morningstar, Y-charts all have TSLA price/earnings of 55-60. While you're picking on Morningstar, there doesn't seem to be big differences between those three - with Mornigstar having the median P/E value of 56. To me it makes more sense to trust their data than someone's "personal forward P/E".
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/key-statistics?p=TSLA
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnas/tsla/valuation
https://ycharts.com/companies/TSLA/pe_ratio
One thing on the twitter I'm uncertain of, it all seems focused on US politics. Are other countries impacted on the negative sentiments? Seems like there are certain elements that may impact globally, but certainly not the whole thing.
The issues with Twitter, at their base, are inherent to the attention economy. Twitters (and social media in general) primary goal as a platform is to keep people engaged. The more users and engagement it has, the better. The quality of the engagement does not matter as a base metric. Algorithms are designed to increase engagement. As a side effect, our base human condition and psychology is drawn to outrage more than anything else. We engage way more (dislikes, comments, screen time) with offensive news than we do with good news. This in turn creates a lot of very riled up people who start to create "us vs them" groups who otherwise wouldn't have such a controversial view of the world. Being that it's a psychological phenomenon, to the extent that other countries are on SM they are susceptible. It's the primary reason I don't think anyone can "fix" Twitter without being overridden by another social media company with less noble goals.
This is a long winded way of saying that the inherent design of Twitter (and social media) makes their issues just as prominent globally as they are in the US. There are extremist groups popping up all over the world.
Back to Tesla, I can definitely see the enthusiasm for the brand if one watches the various youtube videos on Tesla tech (large castings, etc), and I even recall Munro live early episodes criticizing Tesla production. I haven't check in in awhile, they sure have changed their tune! Pretty exciting stuff. Still not sure how that translates to 10x valuation of Ford or GM for the general public, but I can see the appeal.
thanks, I was specifically referring to the potential EV customers who have taken a never tesla stance or are becoming more hesitant due to musk's shananigans on twitter. While it may impact sales in the US, I was thinking that globally it may not be as significant. But it may be! I don't follow social media much at all, but some of the headlines on articles about this w/could be global issues.
This is absolutely a thing, but it's too early to tell if it's a major shift or a rounding error.
If taking a long term view, I think Musk would be fired by the board if it became enough of an issue to impact the overall growth story.
While it would lead to some short term volatility, I think this would probably be the best outcome for long term shareholders.
This is absolutely a thing, but it's too early to tell if it's a major shift or a rounding error.
If taking a long term view, I think Musk would be fired by the board if it became enough of an issue to impact the overall growth story.
While it would lead to some short term volatility, I think this would probably be the best outcome for long term shareholders.
I'm not very bullish on Tesla and I think his current antics have very little long term influence. People would get over it pretty quickly if a 25K model 2 came out.
Again, it comes down to people's willingness to pay massive margins to Tesla for a product that's not like any other.One thing on the twitter I'm uncertain of, it all seems focused on US politics. Are other countries impacted on the negative sentiments? Seems like there are certain elements that may impact globally, but certainly not the whole thing.
The issues with Twitter, at their base, are inherent to the attention economy. Twitters (and social media in general) primary goal as a platform is to keep people engaged. The more users and engagement it has, the better. The quality of the engagement does not matter as a base metric. Algorithms are designed to increase engagement. As a side effect, our base human condition and psychology is drawn to outrage more than anything else. We engage way more (dislikes, comments, screen time) with offensive news than we do with good news. This in turn creates a lot of very riled up people who start to create "us vs them" groups who otherwise wouldn't have such a controversial view of the world. Being that it's a psychological phenomenon, to the extent that other countries are on SM they are susceptible. It's the primary reason I don't think anyone can "fix" Twitter without being overridden by another social media company with less noble goals.
This is a long winded way of saying that the inherent design of Twitter (and social media) makes their issues just as prominent globally as they are in the US. There are extremist groups popping up all over the world.
Back to Tesla, I can definitely see the enthusiasm for the brand if one watches the various youtube videos on Tesla tech (large castings, etc), and I even recall Munro live early episodes criticizing Tesla production. I haven't check in in awhile, they sure have changed their tune! Pretty exciting stuff. Still not sure how that translates to 10x valuation of Ford or GM for the general public, but I can see the appeal.
thanks, I was specifically referring to the potential EV customers who have taken a never tesla stance or are becoming more hesitant due to musk's shananigans on twitter. While it may impact sales in the US, I was thinking that globally it may not be as significant. But it may be! I don't follow social media much at all, but some of the headlines on articles about this w/could be global issues.
This is absolutely a thing, but it's too early to tell if it's a major shift or a rounding error.
If taking a long term view, I think Musk would be fired by the board if it became enough of an issue to impact the overall growth story.
While it would lead to some short term volatility, I think this would probably be the best outcome for long term shareholders.
This is absolutely a thing, but it's too early to tell if it's a major shift or a rounding error.
If taking a long term view, I think Musk would be fired by the board if it became enough of an issue to impact the overall growth story.
While it would lead to some short term volatility, I think this would probably be the best outcome for long term shareholders.
I'm not very bullish on Tesla and I think his current antics have very little long term influence. People would get over it pretty quickly if a 25K model 2 came out.
Not to mention that his goals seem to involve making himself an icon of the right, similar to how he became an icon of the left about a decade ago. There are probably more customers on the right to gain than than will be lost on the left. But I still think Tesla would be better off with a new CEO.
I've thought about how to market EVs to the conservative crowd. These folks currently think a V8 powered 4x4 pickup truck with big chrome wheels and a "performance" muffler is the minimally suitable ride for a man to go back and forth to work (assuming he cannot afford a diesel), and a full-size SUV with 3rd row seating is also necessary in case you need to haul all the kids and stuff on a rainy day. One hauls the bloody deer, the other takes the family to church with all the potluck supplies in the trunk.
Perhaps Musk's pivot to the right has something to do with the realization that his currently left-wing market base will not continue to grow in a world where lots of manufacturers are offering EVs. To keep growing, or to at least not be self-constrained, Tesla will have to make a product for rednecks. But the challenge is, these are the people least open to change. In their minds, their dads and grandpas had pickup trucks with V8 gas engines so that's just the way it's supposed to be.
The Ford Lightning may have sold out, but there's still plenty of skepticism and range anxiety from the traditionalists, as seen via articles and social media videos questioning the towing capacity, range, body panel thickness, etc. of the Lightning. Bubba would like to drive 300 miles each way to his hunting plot, and there's no charging plug when he gets there. Yet, he's the future of EV's, and Tesla can't afford not to cater to him.
Tesla is now offering further discounts to China-based buyers of its Model 3 and Model Y sedans, provided the purchase is completed by the end of the year.
There's nothing a Trump voter loves more than libtard tears, so if Elon can upset his current customer base enough, that should do it.
But with no way to roll coal... I dunno.
In all seriousness, if you're trying to sell a basic consumer good, you avoid politics and controversy at all costs. Tesla has done well getting free publicity as an upstart, but crazy antics aren't going to work for what's now a blue-chip company. At least I don't think they will.
I'm not an Elon fan or Elon hater (nor am I a stalwart partisan on either side), but I have to admit that the Twitter stuff makes me want to buy a Tesla a little bit less. That's probably not good assuming I'm representative of political moderates overall.
-W
Tesla cuts prices in China, again.Quote from: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/tesla-stock-extends-slide-as-new-china-discounts-highlight-demand-concern/ar-AA150bkZTesla is now offering further discounts to China-based buyers of its Model 3 and Model Y sedans, provided the purchase is completed by the end of the year.
China consumer EV subsidies end on the 31st. Unless they're renewed, it could lower demand for BEVs, particularly for the more expensive models.
I'm probably in a similar boat, but one reason I have always struggled to buy a Tesla (or Rivian) in a hypothetical expensive new car scenario is more pragmatic. I just have a preference for buttons. I get the UI is great on Teslas, and I get that it makes sense to hone and refine this interface in a self-driving scenario and manufacturing cost, but I love me some good buttons. Being in a Tesla it feels like being in a waiting room and handed an iPad. I think Toyota/Honda are behind a lot on the energy transition, but they make some damn refined interiors. And until Self Driving is fully actuallize, they are safer and more satisfying to interface than a Tesla while driving. Not to be misread as a safer overall vehicle, just safer to interface.
a modern-day Thomas Edison (intentional burn)Anyone even moderately paying attention knows you will get in any possible negative or dig at Tesla or Elon Musk. "Intentional burn" can safely be presumed.
1. Competition is coming in 2023. Well, ok. Does that mean Tesla’s sales will decline? I don’t think so. As an example, The Bolt is great for the price but pound for pound, it doesn’t compare to the Model 3 and that’s ok. It’s not supposed to. But the thing about the Bolt is GM has sold ~23,000 this year and next year they are only producing 70,000. They can sell out and that’s a blip in total addressable market if the new tax credits bump EV market share in the US to >10%. There will be other EVs out there in 2023 but they won’t be produced in high numbers. Manufacturers who don’t do assembly in the US will struggle more because of not qualifying for the new tax credits. Before EVs are truly competitive with each other as opposed to ICE, all manufacturers have to be able to produce enough to meet growing global demand. That’s not happening in 2023.
The competition issue is less about current sales and really a question of future growth. Telsa's PE ratio is currently around 50, whereas for Ford it's around 8. Does Tesla have enough room for future growth to support such a high PE ratio? I'm skeptical. As the BEV market matures Tesla is getting boxed into a shrinking market segment. The Bolt is not a direct Tesla competitor, but it's taking the budget market. On the higher end, actual luxury automakers (M-B, BMW, Audi, Porsche, etc.) are producing luxury EVs (Tesla fit and finish and quality of the interior are lacking). The Overland/Jeep EV market segment is likely to go to Rivian. Competition at the middle of the market is intensifying, with solid offerings from Kia, Hyundai, Subaru, VW, and others. There's growing competition for the traditional truck and full size SUV segment from Ford and GM. And then you have more direct Tesla competitors with the Mach E and Volvo. I have serious doubts about Tesla's potential for future growth and what this means for the stock price going forward.
The competition issue is less about current sales and really a question of future growth. Telsa's PE ratio is currently around 50, whereas for Ford it's around 8. Does Tesla have enough room for future growth to support such a high PE ratio? I'm skeptical. As the BEV market matures Tesla is getting boxed into a shrinking market segment. The Bolt is not a direct Tesla competitor, but it's taking the budget market. On the higher end, actual luxury automakers (M-B, BMW, Audi, Porsche, etc.) are producing luxury EVs (Tesla fit and finish and quality of the interior are lacking). The Overland/Jeep EV market segment is likely to go to Rivian. Competition at the middle of the market is intensifying, with solid offerings from Kia, Hyundai, Subaru, VW, and others. There's growing competition for the traditional truck and full size SUV segment from Ford and GM. And then you have more direct Tesla competitors with the Mach E and Volvo. I have serious doubts about Tesla's potential for future growth and what this means for the stock price going forward.
I see the narrative but not the numbers. In that point, I was referring to the demand of EVs compared to the capacity to produce them. So Rivian has great products, but they'll likely only produce 50,000 vehicles in 2023. In 2022, 6% is the real EV market share of auto sales in the US. In 2023, it's likely to be 10% with the new tax credits and changing consumer preferences. So if EVs are reaching 1.4 million sales in 2023, take that number and back out stated production from manufacturers. You'll find a hole in supply for that demand. Obviously, real share can't be 10% if the supply isn't there to deliver them, but these are the kinds of assumptions I'm thinking about with competition along with Tesla being one of the few cars to receive the full credit. GMs cars will get only half it until at least 2025, according to the CEO. Because of assembly requirements, Kia, Hyundai, Subaru, Polestart and others get $0 credits (current law and factories).
Tesla is the only one scaling production by the hundreds of thousands in 2023. That's the growth before comparing technical specs of the products.
Tank, I'm in. >)^[ <---attempt at stern face emoji with matrix shades....??.>
Just picked up my Model 3!
I took existing inventory, demo car with 1100 miles on. 2,450 discount for demo. 3750 Dec delivery discount, so 6200 off what the build price would be.
White, black and white interior, 19" sport wheels, rear wheel drive, enhanced autopilot.
Maybe I should have done a build and canned autopilot? idk! I do eventually want FSD, so a step in that direction? But I was thinking the demo discount paid for the interior and wheel upgrades.
I've got one :)
First impressions, Nice car, love the look of the white car/white interior, everything nice and sleek, some very neat features. Old car was a 2013 corolla base model, so quite an upgrade for me. Driving home it was still just a car, lol! Guess I'll have to live with it a bit through thick and thin and see how it goes.
Very happy with the purchase so far! Next step is tesla roof and get my own charger in 23. Hopefully the powerwall too, or maybe put that for a 2024 purchase, depending on how things go.
They had two chargers suggested when I was online buying but I wasn't sure what the deal was, if I need an electrician to install or what? Yep online said electrician needed.
Theres a supercharger about 6 miles away, so not a huge deal but certainly perfer to get my house outfitted!
Tank, I'm in. >)^[ <---attempt at stern face emoji with matrix shades....??.>
Just picked up my Model 3!
I took existing inventory, demo car with 1100 miles on. 2,450 discount for demo. 3750 Dec delivery discount, so 6200 off what the build price would be.
White, black and white interior, 19" sport wheels, rear wheel drive, enhanced autopilot.
Maybe I should have done a build and canned autopilot? idk! I do eventually want FSD, so a step in that direction? But I was thinking the demo discount paid for the interior and wheel upgrades.
I've got one :)
First impressions, Nice car, love the look of the white car/white interior, everything nice and sleek, some very neat features. Old car was a 2013 corolla base model, so quite an upgrade for me. Driving home it was still just a car, lol! Guess I'll have to live with it a bit through thick and thin and see how it goes.
Very happy with the purchase so far! Next step is tesla roof and get my own charger in 23. Hopefully the powerwall too, or maybe put that for a 2024 purchase, depending on how things go.
They had two chargers suggested when I was online buying but I wasn't sure what the deal was, if I need an electrician to install or what? Yep online said electrician needed.
Theres a supercharger about 6 miles away, so not a huge deal but certainly perfer to get my house outfitted!
Hope you enjoy the car!
If you don't drive that many miles, you can get the mobile charger for about $200 and just plug it into your regular outlet. No modifications required. The mobile charger can be useful also for other charging situations on the road.
It will charge very slow that way but for example 12 hours overnight gives you 36 miles.
I don't have a Tesla but considering one next year and that's my charging plan. We don't normally drive more than 36 miles per day. If necessary of course you can just go to a supercharger if it has run down to a low amount.
With electrician you can have modifications done to get much faster home charging.
Agree to disagree. 2023 is basically already upon us, so you're essentially talking near-term trends. What will competitive pressures do to Tesla's market share by 2025 or 2030? Just a few years ago Tesla fans were predicting the end of legacy automakers. Tesla had such a commanding technology lead, the theory went, that others would never be able to catch up.Not recalling that as a generalized sentiment. Please provide documentation.
Well, they did catch up and consumers have a lot of great EVs to choose from.Not recalling that either. Which manufacturers (outside China) do you think have caught up? Maybe VW?
The competition issue is less about current sales and really a question of future growth. Telsa's PE ratio is currently around 50, whereas for Ford it's around 8. Does Tesla have enough room for future growth to support such a high PE ratio? I'm skeptical. As the BEV market matures Tesla is getting boxed into a shrinking market segment. The Bolt is not a direct Tesla competitor, but it's taking the budget market. On the higher end, actual luxury automakers (M-B, BMW, Audi, Porsche, etc.) are producing luxury EVs (Tesla fit and finish and quality of the interior are lacking). The Overland/Jeep EV market segment is likely to go to Rivian. Competition at the middle of the market is intensifying, with solid offerings from Kia, Hyundai, Subaru, VW, and others. There's growing competition for the traditional truck and full size SUV segment from Ford and GM. And then you have more direct Tesla competitors with the Mach E and Volvo. I have serious doubts about Tesla's potential for future growth and what this means for the stock price going forward.
I see the narrative but not the numbers. In that point, I was referring to the demand of EVs compared to the capacity to produce them. So Rivian has great products, but they'll likely only produce 50,000 vehicles in 2023. In 2022, 6% is the real EV market share of auto sales in the US. In 2023, it's likely to be 10% with the new tax credits and changing consumer preferences. So if EVs are reaching 1.4 million sales in 2023, take that number and back out stated production from manufacturers. You'll find a hole in supply for that demand. Obviously, real share can't be 10% if the supply isn't there to deliver them, but these are the kinds of assumptions I'm thinking about with competition along with Tesla being one of the few cars to receive the full credit. GMs cars will get only half it until at least 2025, according to the CEO. Because of assembly requirements, Kia, Hyundai, Subaru, Polestart and others get $0 credits (current law and factories).
Tesla is the only one scaling production by the hundreds of thousands in 2023. That's the growth before comparing technical specs of the products.
Agree to disagree. 2023 is basically already upon us, so you're essentially talking near-term trends. What will competitive pressures do to Tesla's market share by 2025 or 2030? Just a few years ago Tesla fans were predicting the end of legacy automakers. Tesla had such a commanding technology lead, the theory went, that others would never be able to catch up. Well, they did catch up and consumers have a lot of great EVs to choose from. This is a wonderful thing. Automakers will ramp up production in the years ahead. Managing complex supply and production lines is a core competency of established players. The EV market will grow, but Tesla's market share is, and will continue, being eroded by competition on all sides. This is not to say Tesla will not thrive or that it will be unprofitable. But I don't see enough growth ahead to justify a PE of 50.
Tank, I'm in. >)^[ <---attempt at stern face emoji with matrix shades....??.>
Just picked up my Model 3!
I took existing inventory, demo car with 1100 miles on. 2,450 discount for demo. 3750 Dec delivery discount, so 6200 off what the build price would be.
White, black and white interior, 19" sport wheels, rear wheel drive, enhanced autopilot.
Maybe I should have done a build and canned autopilot? idk! I do eventually want FSD, so a step in that direction? But I was thinking the demo discount paid for the interior and wheel upgrades.
I've got one :)
First impressions, Nice car, love the look of the white car/white interior, everything nice and sleek, some very neat features. Old car was a 2013 corolla base model, so quite an upgrade for me. Driving home it was still just a car, lol! Guess I'll have to live with it a bit through thick and thin and see how it goes.
Very happy with the purchase so far! Next step is tesla roof and get my own charger in 23. Hopefully the powerwall too, or maybe put that for a 2024 purchase, depending on how things go.
They had two chargers suggested when I was online buying but I wasn't sure what the deal was, if I need an electrician to install or what? Yep online said electrician needed.
Theres a supercharger about 6 miles away, so not a huge deal but certainly perfer to get my house outfitted!
Agree to disagree. 2023 is basically already upon us, so you're essentially talking near-term trends. What will competitive pressures do to Tesla's market share by 2025 or 2030? Just a few years ago Tesla fans were predicting the end of legacy automakers. Tesla had such a commanding technology lead, the theory went, that others would never be able to catch up.Not recalling that as a generalized sentiment. Please provide documentation.QuoteWell, they did catch up and consumers have a lot of great EVs to choose from.Not recalling that either. Which manufacturers (outside China) do you think have caught up? Maybe VW?
Tank, I'm in. >)^[ <---attempt at stern face emoji with matrix shades....??.>
Just picked up my Model 3!
I took existing inventory, demo car with 1100 miles on. 2,450 discount for demo. 3750 Dec delivery discount, so 6200 off what the build price would be.
White, black and white interior, 19" sport wheels, rear wheel drive, enhanced autopilot.
Maybe I should have done a build and canned autopilot? idk! I do eventually want FSD, so a step in that direction? But I was thinking the demo discount paid for the interior and wheel upgrades.
I've got one :)
First impressions, Nice car, love the look of the white car/white interior, everything nice and sleek, some very neat features. Old car was a 2013 corolla base model, so quite an upgrade for me. Driving home it was still just a car, lol! Guess I'll have to live with it a bit through thick and thin and see how it goes.
Very happy with the purchase so far! Next step is tesla roof and get my own charger in 23. Hopefully the powerwall too, or maybe put that for a 2024 purchase, depending on how things go.
They had two chargers suggested when I was online buying but I wasn't sure what the deal was, if I need an electrician to install or what? Yep online said electrician needed.
Theres a supercharger about 6 miles away, so not a huge deal but certainly perfer to get my house outfitted!
Awesome! I’ve never needed a charger. 120 outlet does 50 miles a night. I’ll do it eventually.
There’s a new tax credit next year for home charger installation.
meanwhile....been picking up the odd share of tesla here and there.
To add to my collection.
Is Tesla's tech marginally superior in certain areas? Yes. Does it matter? No. The Mach E is functionally close enough to the Model Y to be indistinguishable in the mind of the consumer.
Is Tesla's tech marginally superior in certain areas? Yes. Does it matter? No. The Mach E is functionally close enough to the Model Y to be indistinguishable in the mind of the consumer.
Bold claim. 2022 US sales thru Q3:
(https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/10/US-electric-vehicle-sales-by-model-YTD-2022-3.png)
The global all-electric Ford production is expected to reach a rate of 600,000 units annually by the end of 2023 and 2 million units annually by 2026.
Tank, I'm in. >)^[ <---attempt at stern face emoji with matrix shades....??.>
Just picked up my Model 3!
I took existing inventory, demo car with 1100 miles on. 2,450 discount for demo. 3750 Dec delivery discount, so 6200 off what the build price would be.
White, black and white interior, 19" sport wheels, rear wheel drive, enhanced autopilot.
Maybe I should have done a build and canned autopilot? idk! I do eventually want FSD, so a step in that direction? But I was thinking the demo discount paid for the interior and wheel upgrades.
I've got one :)
First impressions, Nice car, love the look of the white car/white interior, everything nice and sleek, some very neat features. Old car was a 2013 corolla base model, so quite an upgrade for me. Driving home it was still just a car, lol! Guess I'll have to live with it a bit through thick and thin and see how it goes.
Very happy with the purchase so far! Next step is tesla roof and get my own charger in 23. Hopefully the powerwall too, or maybe put that for a 2024 purchase, depending on how things go.
They had two chargers suggested when I was online buying but I wasn't sure what the deal was, if I need an electrician to install or what? Yep online said electrician needed.
Theres a supercharger about 6 miles away, so not a huge deal but certainly perfer to get my house outfitted!
meanwhile....been picking up the odd share of tesla here and there.
To add to my collection.
There's a few more on the market this week.
https://twitter.com/SawyerMerritt/status/1603214433487970305 (https://twitter.com/SawyerMerritt/status/1603214433487970305)
Tank, I'm in. >)^[ <---attempt at stern face emoji with matrix shades....??.>
Just picked up my Model 3!
I took existing inventory, demo car with 1100 miles on. 2,450 discount for demo. 3750 Dec delivery discount, so 6200 off what the build price would be.
White, black and white interior, 19" sport wheels, rear wheel drive, enhanced autopilot.
Maybe I should have done a build and canned autopilot? idk! I do eventually want FSD, so a step in that direction? But I was thinking the demo discount paid for the interior and wheel upgrades.
I've got one :)
First impressions, Nice car, love the look of the white car/white interior, everything nice and sleek, some very neat features. Old car was a 2013 corolla base model, so quite an upgrade for me. Driving home it was still just a car, lol! Guess I'll have to live with it a bit through thick and thin and see how it goes.
Very happy with the purchase so far! Next step is tesla roof and get my own charger in 23. Hopefully the powerwall too, or maybe put that for a 2024 purchase, depending on how things go.
They had two chargers suggested when I was online buying but I wasn't sure what the deal was, if I need an electrician to install or what? Yep online said electrician needed.
Theres a supercharger about 6 miles away, so not a huge deal but certainly perfer to get my house outfitted!
Jealous. Our 2013 LEAF got totaled in August. I wanted a Tesla, but no credit for Tesla in 2022 and I was worried we wouldn’t qualify for credit in 2023, so we ended up going with 2023 LEAF that still qualifies for full credit in 2022. If I had known Tesla was essentially going to pull demand forward by offering half the value of the full credit I think I would have pulled the trigger. Oh well... some day. Enjoy your new ride!
This thread has prompted me to do some more reading about current EV offerings (pun intended)... I'm pleasantly surprised by what's out there. Like maybe 3-5 years ago Tesla was essentially the only game in town for nicer longer range vehicles. Now, there are a lot of great options. Motortrend has an excellent list of their top EV picks (https://www.motortrend.com/style/electric/). Tesla still features prominently, but there's real competition. The Ioniq 5 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0coqxazQVE&t=13s) stands out (though so do others): 300+ mile range, fast charging, under $50k. Very competitive.2023 should be an exciting year for EVs. Good for the planet, good for buyers, may not be great for TSLA though time will tell.
This thread has prompted me to do some more reading about current EV offerings (pun intended)... I'm pleasantly surprised by what's out there. Like maybe 3-5 years ago Tesla was essentially the only game in town for nicer longer range vehicles. Now, there are a lot of great options. Motortrend has an excellent list of their top EV picks (https://www.motortrend.com/style/electric/). Tesla still features prominently, but there's real competition. The Ioniq 5 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0coqxazQVE&t=13s) stands out (though so do others): 300+ mile range, fast charging, under $50k. Very competitive.2023 should be an exciting year for EVs. Good for the planet, good for buyers, may not be great for TSLA though time will tell.
Out of curiosity, how are you so confident making arguments about Tesla competitive standing and the industry the past week and you've just only decided to see what EVs are out there? Ioniq 5 is a great car, but it's not a harbinger of doom. Nor are those other models (which have all been available in 2022).
I agree more EVs are good for consumers and the planet. The real issue here is the CAGR for EV demand. Not many companies are set up for that kind of growth or ready to turn the ship on their ICE business.
https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/599894415/at-30-cagr-global-electric-vehicle-supply-equipment-market-size-to-surpass-us-210-bn-by-2030-forecast-report-by-cmi (https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/599894415/at-30-cagr-global-electric-vehicle-supply-equipment-market-size-to-surpass-us-210-bn-by-2030-forecast-report-by-cmi)
Back of the napkin math here: Most companies don't have detailed production targets, but we've seen many fumble the ball here, particularly in getting battery supply. Being generous, giving many companies the same production CAGR as Tesla, supply still doesn't meet demand for EVs until 2026 and beyond. But the thing to keep in mind here is Tesla is growing during this period. Most manufacturers are replacing ICE products for EVs at high development cost and high ICE line sunk cost.
Tesla investors are growing frustrated with a falling stock price and a CEO who is splitting his time between running three different companies.
It's become such that Tesla's third largest individual shareholder, KoGuan Leo, is calling for a new CEO to take over the EV maker, which would allow Musk to focus on his other ventures like SpaceX and Twitter.
"Elon abandoned Tesla and Tesla has no working CEO," KoGuan Leo tweeted on Wednesday. "Tesla needs and deserves to have working full time CEO."
Musk won't let go I'm sure, with him as chair and brother on the board, doesn't seem likely he could be removed.Eh, you just need to set up a convincing enough Twitter poll. :D
This thread has prompted me to do some more reading about current EV offerings (pun intended)... I'm pleasantly surprised by what's out there. Like maybe 3-5 years ago Tesla was essentially the only game in town for nicer longer range vehicles. Now, there are a lot of great options. Motortrend has an excellent list of their top EV picks (https://www.motortrend.com/style/electric/). Tesla still features prominently, but there's real competition. The Ioniq 5 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0coqxazQVE&t=13s) stands out (though so do others): 300+ mile range, fast charging, under $50k. Very competitive.2023 should be an exciting year for EVs. Good for the planet, good for buyers, may not be great for TSLA though time will tell.
Out of curiosity, how are you so confident making arguments about Tesla competitive standing and the industry the past week and you've just only decided to see what EVs are out there? Ioniq 5 is a great car, but it's not a harbinger of doom. Nor are those other models (which have all been available in 2022).
It's not that I didn't know what was out there, I just went *way* further down the rabbit hole this week. The more I dig, the more it becomes apparent that the EV market is maturing. My understanding is that this was always a goal for Tesla, to force other companies to design and produce EVs, thereby pushing the entire market forward.I agree more EVs are good for consumers and the planet. The real issue here is the CAGR for EV demand. Not many companies are set up for that kind of growth or ready to turn the ship on their ICE business.
https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/599894415/at-30-cagr-global-electric-vehicle-supply-equipment-market-size-to-surpass-us-210-bn-by-2030-forecast-report-by-cmi (https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/599894415/at-30-cagr-global-electric-vehicle-supply-equipment-market-size-to-surpass-us-210-bn-by-2030-forecast-report-by-cmi)
Back of the napkin math here: Most companies don't have detailed production targets, but we've seen many fumble the ball here, particularly in getting battery supply. Being generous, giving many companies the same production CAGR as Tesla, supply still doesn't meet demand for EVs until 2026 and beyond. But the thing to keep in mind here is Tesla is growing during this period. Most manufacturers are replacing ICE products for EVs at high development cost and high ICE line sunk cost.
Bold claims. Whats your source on this? I will point out again that Ford is expecting to ramp up 600,000 BEVs by end 2023. Ford, unlike Tesla, is not prone to just pulling estimates out of thin air. GM plans (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gm-raises-2022-guidance-and-expects-north-american-ev-portfolio-to-be-profitable-in-2025-as-annual-capacity-tops-1-million-301682014.html#:~:text=GM%20expects%20to%20build%20400%2C000,per%20day%20by%20mid%2Ddecade.) to scale BEV production to 400,000 units from 2022-2024 and 1M annually by 2025. Hyundai is planning (https://www.teslarati.com/hyundai-increases-production-goal-us-plant/#:~:text=But%20now%2C%20according%20to%20comments,capacity%20to%20500%2C000%20units%20annually.) on scaling to 500,000 BEV units by 2024. Kia plans (https://insideevs.com/news/571273/kia-2030-roadmap-ev-transition/) for 1.2M BEVs annually by 2030. Bloomberg estimates (https://electrek.co/2022/06/14/volkswagen-electric-sales-tesla/) that VW will pass Tesla in BEV production by 2024. I just don't buy that all these companies, with proven track records of managing complex supply and production lines and producing vehicles at scale, are way off in their estimates. IMO, the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise.
I'm comparing tech, not units sold. Regardless, Mach E production is ramping up and Ford is forecasting 270,000 units in 2023 (up from estimates of 200k made earlier in 2021). From the linked article:You may not think so - but volume and ramping matters. A lot.QuoteThe global all-electric Ford production is expected to reach a rate of 600,000 units annually by the end of 2023 and 2 million units annually by 2026.
I've been trying to figure out a way to make a Tesla a viable financial solution for an EV for me personally, but just can't get there.
The very cheapest base model 3 is $51,081 with tax and no other fees, so maybe $51,400, or $43,150 after rebates. This car would have less range than a 2023 Chevy Bolt that I can get for just under $30k out the door, or $25,500 after rebates. Well equipped with heated seats and steering wheel. I personally can't justify spending almost $18,000 more for an EV with less range just because its a little nicer in *some* ways, but worse in others i.e. QC, fit and finish, etc. The undoubtedly far superior DC fast charging is not important enough to me as I don't do long distance road trips frequently.
To get a clearly "better" car with Tesla, i.e. more range, it would require the dual motor for over $68,000 before rebates, or $60k after...... I just can't personally justify spending $60k vs 30. The benefits would be:
1)Faster....doesn't matter to me....the Bolt is faster than I need it to be 99% of the time
2)Longer range....this is important to me but now worth $30k
3)Faster charging and better charging network.....great features but I don't road trip weekly.
If the base model 3 were a bit cheaper and hand longer range than the Bolt, it would be more compelling.
Musk won't let go I'm sure, with him as chair and brother on the board, doesn't seem likely he could be removed.Eh, you just need to set up a convincing enough Twitter poll. :D
This thread has prompted me to do some more reading about current EV offerings (pun intended)... I'm pleasantly surprised by what's out there. Like maybe 3-5 years ago Tesla was essentially the only game in town for nicer longer range vehicles. Now, there are a lot of great options. Motortrend has an excellent list of their top EV picks (https://www.motortrend.com/style/electric/). Tesla still features prominently, but there's real competition. The Ioniq 5 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0coqxazQVE&t=13s) stands out (though so do others): 300+ mile range, fast charging, under $50k. Very competitive.2023 should be an exciting year for EVs. Good for the planet, good for buyers, may not be great for TSLA though time will tell.
Out of curiosity, how are you so confident making arguments about Tesla competitive standing and the industry the past week and you've just only decided to see what EVs are out there? Ioniq 5 is a great car, but it's not a harbinger of doom. Nor are those other models (which have all been available in 2022).
It's not that I didn't know what was out there, I just went *way* further down the rabbit hole this week. The more I dig, the more it becomes apparent that the EV market is maturing. My understanding is that this was always a goal for Tesla, to force other companies to design and produce EVs, thereby pushing the entire market forward.I agree more EVs are good for consumers and the planet. The real issue here is the CAGR for EV demand. Not many companies are set up for that kind of growth or ready to turn the ship on their ICE business.
https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/599894415/at-30-cagr-global-electric-vehicle-supply-equipment-market-size-to-surpass-us-210-bn-by-2030-forecast-report-by-cmi (https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/599894415/at-30-cagr-global-electric-vehicle-supply-equipment-market-size-to-surpass-us-210-bn-by-2030-forecast-report-by-cmi)
Back of the napkin math here: Most companies don't have detailed production targets, but we've seen many fumble the ball here, particularly in getting battery supply. Being generous, giving many companies the same production CAGR as Tesla, supply still doesn't meet demand for EVs until 2026 and beyond. But the thing to keep in mind here is Tesla is growing during this period. Most manufacturers are replacing ICE products for EVs at high development cost and high ICE line sunk cost.
Bold claims. Whats your source on this? I will point out again that Ford is expecting to ramp up 600,000 BEVs by end 2023. Ford, unlike Tesla, is not prone to just pulling estimates out of thin air. GM plans (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gm-raises-2022-guidance-and-expects-north-american-ev-portfolio-to-be-profitable-in-2025-as-annual-capacity-tops-1-million-301682014.html#:~:text=GM%20expects%20to%20build%20400%2C000,per%20day%20by%20mid%2Ddecade.) to scale BEV production to 400,000 units from 2022-2024 and 1M annually by 2025. Hyundai is planning (https://www.teslarati.com/hyundai-increases-production-goal-us-plant/#:~:text=But%20now%2C%20according%20to%20comments,capacity%20to%20500%2C000%20units%20annually.) on scaling to 500,000 BEV units by 2024. Kia plans (https://insideevs.com/news/571273/kia-2030-roadmap-ev-transition/) for 1.2M BEVs annually by 2030. Bloomberg estimates (https://electrek.co/2022/06/14/volkswagen-electric-sales-tesla/) that VW will pass Tesla in BEV production by 2024. I just don't buy that all these companies, with proven track records of managing complex supply and production lines and producing vehicles at scale, are way off in their estimates. IMO, the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise.
It’s a forecast. If you read the chart, I was very generous on production for OEMs greater than stated goals. I sourced the CAGR. It’s back of the napkin forecast on Total Addressable Market which clearly won’t be accurate but it can be a tool, unlike only your anecdotes and gut feeling. Tesla’s production run rates are in the books with 2 factories ramping.
What’s there to prove? It’s investing. I don’t have a crystal ball. I think the burden is on you to explain how 2022 sales of Tesla was so much higher vs all those competitors you listed. Why is that? Those aren’t future vehicles. And even more burden assuming higher market share when hardly any qualify for new tax credits in 2023 while Tesla does. Since you just started looking at EVs in depth, I doubt you've actually looked at production numbers industry wide or really anything else.
I'm comparing tech, not units sold. Regardless, Mach E production is ramping up and Ford is forecasting 270,000 units in 2023 (up from estimates of 200k made earlier in 2021). From the linked article:You may not think so - but volume and ramping matters. A lot.QuoteThe global all-electric Ford production is expected to reach a rate of 600,000 units annually by the end of 2023 and 2 million units annually by 2026.
I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla hits that projected Ford 2026 run rate either this quarter or soon thereafter. 3-4 years is a lot of time when you are starting out behind and your competitor has a very long history of ramping production volume ~50% per year (long term average).
It's amusing you take legacy manufacturer projections at face value but dismiss Tesla projections. I point you to the projections GM was making around 2016 about Bolt production ramping quickly. 2017 was peak production year until 2022.
Is Tesla overly aggressive with their production targets? Absolutely. Which is why I try to rely on projections based on historical ramp rate.
So your forecasts, based on a report stating 30% CAGR, with Tesla achieving 50% CAGR into 2026. Vs estimates from other automakers as they ramp up. Let's put a pin in this and revisit it next year and see where the market is.
Qualitative analysis (features, technology, branding, etc.) isn't the same as anecdote or gut feelings - these things matter even if they are very difficult or impossible to fully quantify. I think TSLA fans are ignoring (or severely underestimating) the implications of the Musk-Twitter-Tesla association in the mind of consumers. At some point people are going to feel uncomfortable being seen in Twitter cars.
I've been trying to figure out a way to make a Tesla a viable financial solution for an EV for me personally, but just can't get there.
The very cheapest base model 3 is $51,081 with tax and no other fees, so maybe $51,400, or $43,150 after rebates. This car would have less range than a 2023 Chevy Bolt that I can get for just under $30k out the door, or $25,500 after rebates. Well equipped with heated seats and steering wheel. I personally can't justify spending almost $18,000 more for an EV with less range just because its a little nicer in *some* ways, but worse in others i.e. QC, fit and finish, etc. The undoubtedly far superior DC fast charging is not important enough to me as I don't do long distance road trips frequently.
To get a clearly "better" car with Tesla, i.e. more range, it would require the dual motor for over $68,000 before rebates, or $60k after...... I just can't personally justify spending $60k vs 30. The benefits would be:
1)Faster....doesn't matter to me....the Bolt is faster than I need it to be 99% of the time
2)Longer range....this is important to me but now worth $30k
3)Faster charging and better charging network.....great features but I don't road trip weekly.
If the base model 3 were a bit cheaper and hand longer range than the Bolt, it would be more compelling.
I'm probably going to get a used Model 3 with FSD Beta included instead of new. They're running about $38,000ish right now; $34,000 with the used EV tax credit. With FSD Beta included, that's what I want for the next 10 years.
So your forecasts, based on a report stating 30% CAGR, with Tesla achieving 50% CAGR into 2026. Vs estimates from other automakers as they ramp up. Let's put a pin in this and revisit it next year and see where the market is.
Qualitative analysis (features, technology, branding, etc.) isn't the same as anecdote or gut feelings - these things matter even if they are very difficult or impossible to fully quantify. I think TSLA fans are ignoring (or severely underestimating) the implications of the Musk-Twitter-Tesla association in the mind of consumers. At some point people are going to feel uncomfortable being seen in Twitter cars.
With that simple chart, I was trying to present an argument for why Tesla will sell their cars AND also believe the OEMs will sell their cars too. You have not acknowledged Tesla's targets and don't take them face value. That's fine. But you're not taking in EV TAM growth into your argument at all. It's like a static thing. GM sells more cars so Tesla sells less. In a static market, that makes sense, but EV TAM is growing rapidly.
I agree qualitative analysis matters. I've posted a lot about Tesla's feature and product differentiation in the past. I own a Model Y. Some of my buddies own other EVs. But if you say they will sell so much that Tesla won't grow, that's the tough claim based on anecdotes and gut feelings.
"This car is great!"
"Does it sell well?"
"No!"
If the products were so good, why are Ioniq 5s on the lots here? That's my question to you. How does qualitative analysis fit there?
I do agree that the Tesla brand is being damaged in a way, but it's not showing up in numbers yet. Agree to wait and see.
So your forecasts, based on a report stating 30% CAGR, with Tesla achieving 50% CAGR into 2026. Vs estimates from other automakers as they ramp up. Let's put a pin in this and revisit it next year and see where the market is.
Qualitative analysis (features, technology, branding, etc.) isn't the same as anecdote or gut feelings - these things matter even if they are very difficult or impossible to fully quantify. I think TSLA fans are ignoring (or severely underestimating) the implications of the Musk-Twitter-Tesla association in the mind of consumers. At some point people are going to feel uncomfortable being seen in Twitter cars.
With that simple chart, I was trying to present an argument for why Tesla will sell their cars AND also believe the OEMs will sell their cars too. You have not acknowledged Tesla's targets and don't take them face value. That's fine. But you're not taking in EV TAM growth into your argument at all. It's like a static thing. GM sells more cars so Tesla sells less. In a static market, that makes sense, but EV TAM is growing rapidly.
I agree qualitative analysis matters. I've posted a lot about Tesla's feature and product differentiation in the past. I own a Model Y. Some of my buddies own other EVs. But if you say they will sell so much that Tesla won't grow, that's the tough claim based on anecdotes and gut feelings.
"This car is great!"
"Does it sell well?"
"No!"
If the products were so good, why are Ioniq 5s on the lots here? That's my question to you. How does qualitative analysis fit there?
I do agree that the Tesla brand is being damaged in a way, but it's not showing up in numbers yet. Agree to wait and see.
As mentioned up thread, I have reasons (https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a35350331/checking-in-on-all-the-promises-elon-musk-and-tesla-have-made/) for not taking Musk (and by implication, Tesla) at face value.
I understand your forecast and acknowledge it, but also recognize that this is based on a 30% CAGR for the BEV market AND Tesla's volume growing faster than the total market at 50%. Whereas S&P estimates (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/29/teslas-dominance-of-evs-is-eroding-as-cheaper-cars-hit-the-market.html) that Tesla's market share will drop to 20% by 2025. I think we'll have to wait and see who is right.
To be clear, I don't think Tesla will become unprofitable anytime soon, and I do believe their volumes will continue to increase. But will it increase fast enough to justify the stock's very high PE ratio. Put another way, TSLA's valuation is higher than the other top 4 automakers COMBINED (https://companiesmarketcap.com/automakers/largest-automakers-by-market-cap/). From an investment point of view, it's an outlier and not in a good way.
Tank, I'm in. >)^[ <---attempt at stern face emoji with matrix shades....??.>
Just picked up my Model 3!
I took existing inventory, demo car with 1100 miles on. 2,450 discount for demo. 3750 Dec delivery discount, so 6200 off what the build price would be.
White, black and white interior, 19" sport wheels, rear wheel drive, enhanced autopilot.
Maybe I should have done a build and canned autopilot? idk! I do eventually want FSD, so a step in that direction? But I was thinking the demo discount paid for the interior and wheel upgrades.
I've got one :)
First impressions, Nice car, love the look of the white car/white interior, everything nice and sleek, some very neat features. Old car was a 2013 corolla base model, so quite an upgrade for me. Driving home it was still just a car, lol! Guess I'll have to live with it a bit through thick and thin and see how it goes.
Very happy with the purchase so far! Next step is tesla roof and get my own charger in 23. Hopefully the powerwall too, or maybe put that for a 2024 purchase, depending on how things go.
They had two chargers suggested when I was online buying but I wasn't sure what the deal was, if I need an electrician to install or what? Yep online said electrician needed.
Theres a supercharger about 6 miles away, so not a huge deal but certainly perfer to get my house outfitted!
I like to imagine at some point in the 1920’s investors sat around and said things like, “how can you justify Ford’s valuation, it’s worth more than the top for livery companies combined!”
There are only two companies on the planet that are currently selling EVs for a profit, Tesla (28% margin) and BYD (barely). It is estimated that Ford is losing roughly $10k on every Mach-e they sell. They will continue to lose on each vehicle until they reach the scale Tesla has reached (roughly 1 million plus EVs/Year). At current projections that won’t happen until 2024 at the earliest. In the meantime, 90% of new EV customers are replacing an ICE vehicle. Meaning nearly every unprofitable EV sale the legacy autos make is also costing them a profitable ICE vehicle sale. The legacy autos are also sitting on billions of debt and soon to be stranded ICE manufacturing assets. Tesla has neither. For good measure throw in an unpopular dealership network that is reluctant to sell EVs and dependent on servicing ICE vehicles (oil changes, etc.) for a majority of their profit. Add that all up and you start to see why Tesla valuation relative to the “competition’ is justified. That’s just for starters, doesn’t even consider battery manufacturing capabilities, Tesla energy revenue, supercharger network, etc.
Agree, volume and ramping matters a lot. But this is something legacy automakers are experienced with.Yet other than (possibly) VW, none of the legacy Western automakers have successfully ramped an EV. Tesla's growth rate of ~50% unit increase per year has been steady for a decade.
To be clear, I don't think Tesla will become unprofitable anytime soon, and I do believe their volumes will continue to increase. But will it increase fast enough to justify the stock's very high PE ratio. Put another way, TSLA's valuation is higher than the other top 4 automakers COMBINED (https://companiesmarketcap.com/automakers/largest-automakers-by-market-cap/). From an investment point of view, it's an outlier and not in a good way.A forward PE of 28 for a company increasing unit growth 50% Y-on-Y and ~30% gross margin ain't that high.
The transition from animal power to mechanized vehicles was a much larger shift in innovation than ICE -> BEV.Is it? Doesn't seem obviously so to me. How about going through your rationale?
The transition from animal power to mechanized vehicles was a much larger shift in innovation than ICE -> BEV.Is it? Doesn't seem obviously so to me. How about going through your rationale?
Be sure to keep in mind the "refuel at home" equivalence for animal power and BEVs, etc.
The transition from animal power to mechanized vehicles was a much larger shift in innovation than ICE -> BEV.Is it? Doesn't seem obviously so to me. How about going through your rationale?
Be sure to keep in mind the "refuel at home" equivalence for animal power and BEVs, etc.
Tank, I'm in. >)^[ <---attempt at stern face emoji with matrix shades....??.>
Just picked up my Model 3!
I took existing inventory, demo car with 1100 miles on. 2,450 discount for demo. 3750 Dec delivery discount, so 6200 off what the build price would be.
White, black and white interior, 19" sport wheels, rear wheel drive, enhanced autopilot.
Maybe I should have done a build and canned autopilot? idk! I do eventually want FSD, so a step in that direction? But I was thinking the demo discount paid for the interior and wheel upgrades.
I've got one :)
First impressions, Nice car, love the look of the white car/white interior, everything nice and sleek, some very neat features. Old car was a 2013 corolla base model, so quite an upgrade for me. Driving home it was still just a car, lol! Guess I'll have to live with it a bit through thick and thin and see how it goes.
Very happy with the purchase so far! Next step is tesla roof and get my own charger in 23. Hopefully the powerwall too, or maybe put that for a 2024 purchase, depending on how things go.
They had two chargers suggested when I was online buying but I wasn't sure what the deal was, if I need an electrician to install or what? Yep online said electrician needed.
Theres a supercharger about 6 miles away, so not a huge deal but certainly perfer to get my house outfitted!
Awesome! I’ve never needed a charger. 120 outlet does 50 miles a night. I’ll do it eventually.
There’s a new tax credit next year for home charger installation.
To be clear, I don't think Tesla will become unprofitable anytime soon, and I do believe their volumes will continue to increase. But will it increase fast enough to justify the stock's very high PE ratio. Put another way, TSLA's valuation is higher than the other top 4 automakers COMBINED (https://companiesmarketcap.com/automakers/largest-automakers-by-market-cap/). From an investment point of view, it's an outlier and not in a good way.A forward PE of 28 for a company increasing unit growth 50% Y-on-Y and ~30% gross margin ain't that high.
Come back with a comprehensive analysis if you want to be taken seriously rather than dismissed as a legacy fanboy. You should probably start with relative debt load and other obligations, but you do you.
If you're really on top of things, you will also consider the "stranded value" of those manufacturer's ICE production facilities. Many, many billions of dollars of facilities, soon to be worthless.
The transition from animal power to mechanized vehicles was a much larger shift in innovation than ICE -> BEV.Is it? Doesn't seem obviously so to me. How about going through your rationale?
Be sure to keep in mind the "refuel at home" equivalence for animal power and BEVs, etc.
Horses are living creatures that require effort to keep alive even when not in use. As living creatures they're limited to a daily range of 10-20 miles, depending on load and conditions. Automobiles don't have any of these limitations, but are a lot more technologically sophisticated. A horse drawn buggy is relatively simple to create and assemble, which was typically created by a craftsman. Whereas the automobile required thousands of moving parts, specialized engineering, factories, and assembly lines.
Other than the drive-train, the manufacturing process for BEV and ICE vehicles is more-or-less the same. Suspension, body, seats, interior, etc. An ICE drive-train has around 2000+ moving parts, whereas a BEV has around 20, so the complexity of the BEV supply chain and manufacturing process is actually lower, which means a lower barrier to entry for competitors.
I'm not a legacy fanboy, but neither am I a Tesla fanboy. It's worth noting that legacy makers aren't the only competition, as Rivian and others also enter the fray. I simply don't buy the narrative that Tesla is SO far ahead of the competition that other manufactures cannot catch up. The Mach E is a darn good EV, especially for Ford's first iteration. The legacy companies are already ramping up, not yet to Tesla's level, but I believe they will get there relatively soon.
I like to imagine at some point in the 1920’s investors sat around and said things like, “how can you justify Ford’s valuation, it’s worth more than the top for livery companies combined!”
The transition from animal power to mechanized vehicles was a much larger shift in innovation than ICE -> BEV. And the real secret sauce with Ford was the standardization of parts and the mass assembly line. Tesla mainstreamed BEVs, which is a big accomplishment, but it's essentially taking the existing concept of the car and replacing the drive-train.There are only two companies on the planet that are currently selling EVs for a profit, Tesla (28% margin) and BYD (barely). It is estimated that Ford is losing roughly $10k on every Mach-e they sell. They will continue to lose on each vehicle until they reach the scale Tesla has reached (roughly 1 million plus EVs/Year). At current projections that won’t happen until 2024 at the earliest. In the meantime, 90% of new EV customers are replacing an ICE vehicle. Meaning nearly every unprofitable EV sale the legacy autos make is also costing them a profitable ICE vehicle sale. The legacy autos are also sitting on billions of debt and soon to be stranded ICE manufacturing assets. Tesla has neither. For good measure throw in an unpopular dealership network that is reluctant to sell EVs and dependent on servicing ICE vehicles (oil changes, etc.) for a majority of their profit. Add that all up and you start to see why Tesla valuation relative to the “competition’ is justified. That’s just for starters, doesn’t even consider battery manufacturing capabilities, Tesla energy revenue, supercharger network, etc.
About 2/3 of Ford's dealerships have opted to sell EVs, which requires them to invest a significant amount to become EV certified (https://www.thestreet.com/technology/ford-motor-gets-a-big-win). This is a large advantage for Ford, as it means an instant network of showrooms and sales folks, but also certified service centers. So I don't think it's accurate to claim dealerships don't want to sell EVs.
It took Tesla 17 years to turn a profit, whereas GM expects to reach EV profitability by 2025 (https://www.autoweek.com/news/industry-news/a42053077/gm-ev-profitability-investor-day-wall-street/). In the meantime, legacy automakers will fund EV initiatives via profits from their established ICE business. They're clearly playing a long game here, phasing in changes to their fleets to match consumer demand and new government mandates.
To be clear, I don't think Tesla will become unprofitable anytime soon, and I do believe their volumes will continue to increase. But will it increase fast enough to justify the stock's very high PE ratio. Put another way, TSLA's valuation is higher than the other top 4 automakers COMBINED (https://companiesmarketcap.com/automakers/largest-automakers-by-market-cap/). From an investment point of view, it's an outlier and not in a good way.A forward PE of 28 for a company increasing unit growth 50% Y-on-Y and ~30% gross margin ain't that high.
Come back with a comprehensive analysis if you want to be taken seriously rather than dismissed as a legacy fanboy. You should probably start with relative debt load and other obligations, but you do you.
If you're really on top of things, you will also consider the "stranded value" of those manufacturer's ICE production facilities. Many, many billions of dollars of facilities, soon to be worthless.
The difference, of course, is that I'm not claiming Ford or any legacy automaker is a good investment. I can argue that TSLA isn't a good investment while remaining neutral on legacy companies as investments.
Legacy autos have to compete with Telsa, but Tesla stock has to compete with.. it's CEO? Elon Musk is dumping Tesla stock, so buying now seems like fighting the Fed. But once that ends and we have certainty on a recession, Tesla could bounce back.To be clear, I don't think Tesla will become unprofitable anytime soon, and I do believe their volumes will continue to increase. But will it increase fast enough to justify the stock's very high PE ratio. Put another way, TSLA's valuation is higher than the other top 4 automakers COMBINED (https://companiesmarketcap.com/automakers/largest-automakers-by-market-cap/). From an investment point of view, it's an outlier and not in a good way.A forward PE of 28 for a company increasing unit growth 50% Y-on-Y and ~30% gross margin ain't that high.
Come back with a comprehensive analysis if you want to be taken seriously rather than dismissed as a legacy fanboy. You should probably start with relative debt load and other obligations, but you do you.
If you're really on top of things, you will also consider the "stranded value" of those manufacturer's ICE production facilities. Many, many billions of dollars of facilities, soon to be worthless.
The difference, of course, is that I'm not claiming Ford or any legacy automaker is a good investment. I can argue that TSLA isn't a good investment while remaining neutral on legacy companies as investments.
Hard to argue that legacy autos aren’t good investments at the same time arguing Tesla is a bad investment. Tesla bears routinely point to the imminent competition coming from legacy auto as proof of Tesla’s inflated valuation. Isn’t good and bad largely dictated in relative terms by the competition in this case?
Multi-billionaire Elon Musk has sold another 22 million shares, worth $3.58bn (£2.9bn), in the electric car maker Tesla.https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63981767
The shares were sold on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday this week, according to a filing with a US financial regulator.
It brings the total of Tesla stocks sold by Mr Musk over the past year to almost $40bn.
The transition from animal power to mechanized vehicles was a much larger shift in innovation than ICE -> BEV.Is it? Doesn't seem obviously so to me. How about going through your rationale?
Be sure to keep in mind the "refuel at home" equivalence for animal power and BEVs, etc.
Horses are living creatures that require effort to keep alive even when not in use. As living creatures they're limited to a daily range of 10-20 miles, depending on load and conditions. Automobiles don't have any of these limitations, but are a lot more technologically sophisticated. A horse drawn buggy is relatively simple to create and assemble, which was typically created by a craftsman. Whereas the automobile required thousands of moving parts, specialized engineering, factories, and assembly lines.
Other than the drive-train, the manufacturing process for BEV and ICE vehicles is more-or-less the same. Suspension, body, seats, interior, etc. An ICE drive-train has around 2000+ moving parts, whereas a BEV has around 20, so the complexity of the BEV supply chain and manufacturing process is actually lower, which means a lower barrier to entry for competitors.
I'm not a legacy fanboy, but neither am I a Tesla fanboy. It's worth noting that legacy makers aren't the only competition, as Rivian and others also enter the fray. I simply don't buy the narrative that Tesla is SO far ahead of the competition that other manufactures cannot catch up. The Mach E is a darn good EV, especially for Ford's first iteration. The legacy companies are already ramping up, not yet to Tesla's level, but I believe they will get there relatively soon.
So you think ICE vehicles and EV vehicles will reach some equilibrium state where we have both in significant numbers 15-20 years from now? That’s not how disruptions works I’m afraid. Flip phones had all the same basic functionality as smart phones (calls, texts, pictures, internet access), but I don’t know anyone under the age of 75 that still has a flip phone even though. they’re cheaper. EVs are simply a superior product. Cheaper to operate, better performance, quieter, less polluting, fewer parts, longer lasting, etc. Battery prices continue to drop and economies of scale continue to ramp. EVs are reaching price parity as we speak. It’s game over. But you enjoy your ICE, inner-tube box TV, Kodak camera, flip phone, and CDs cause there’s no real difference, right?
The transition from animal power to mechanized vehicles was a much larger shift in innovation than ICE -> BEV.Is it? Doesn't seem obviously so to me. How about going through your rationale?
Be sure to keep in mind the "refuel at home" equivalence for animal power and BEVs, etc.
Horses are living creatures that require effort to keep alive even when not in use. As living creatures they're limited to a daily range of 10-20 miles, depending on load and conditions. Automobiles don't have any of these limitations, but are a lot more technologically sophisticated. A horse drawn buggy is relatively simple to create and assemble, which was typically created by a craftsman. Whereas the automobile required thousands of moving parts, specialized engineering, factories, and assembly lines.
Other than the drive-train, the manufacturing process for BEV and ICE vehicles is more-or-less the same. Suspension, body, seats, interior, etc. An ICE drive-train has around 2000+ moving parts, whereas a BEV has around 20, so the complexity of the BEV supply chain and manufacturing process is actually lower, which means a lower barrier to entry for competitors.
I'm not a legacy fanboy, but neither am I a Tesla fanboy. It's worth noting that legacy makers aren't the only competition, as Rivian and others also enter the fray. I simply don't buy the narrative that Tesla is SO far ahead of the competition that other manufactures cannot catch up. The Mach E is a darn good EV, especially for Ford's first iteration. The legacy companies are already ramping up, not yet to Tesla's level, but I believe they will get there relatively soon.
I like to imagine at some point in the 1920’s investors sat around and said things like, “how can you justify Ford’s valuation, it’s worth more than the top for livery companies combined!”
The transition from animal power to mechanized vehicles was a much larger shift in innovation than ICE -> BEV. And the real secret sauce with Ford was the standardization of parts and the mass assembly line. Tesla mainstreamed BEVs, which is a big accomplishment, but it's essentially taking the existing concept of the car and replacing the drive-train.There are only two companies on the planet that are currently selling EVs for a profit, Tesla (28% margin) and BYD (barely). It is estimated that Ford is losing roughly $10k on every Mach-e they sell. They will continue to lose on each vehicle until they reach the scale Tesla has reached (roughly 1 million plus EVs/Year). At current projections that won’t happen until 2024 at the earliest. In the meantime, 90% of new EV customers are replacing an ICE vehicle. Meaning nearly every unprofitable EV sale the legacy autos make is also costing them a profitable ICE vehicle sale. The legacy autos are also sitting on billions of debt and soon to be stranded ICE manufacturing assets. Tesla has neither. For good measure throw in an unpopular dealership network that is reluctant to sell EVs and dependent on servicing ICE vehicles (oil changes, etc.) for a majority of their profit. Add that all up and you start to see why Tesla valuation relative to the “competition’ is justified. That’s just for starters, doesn’t even consider battery manufacturing capabilities, Tesla energy revenue, supercharger network, etc.
About 2/3 of Ford's dealerships have opted to sell EVs, which requires them to invest a significant amount to become EV certified (https://www.thestreet.com/technology/ford-motor-gets-a-big-win). This is a large advantage for Ford, as it means an instant network of showrooms and sales folks, but also certified service centers. So I don't think it's accurate to claim dealerships don't want to sell EVs.
It took Tesla 17 years to turn a profit, whereas GM expects to reach EV profitability by 2025 (https://www.autoweek.com/news/industry-news/a42053077/gm-ev-profitability-investor-day-wall-street/). In the meantime, legacy automakers will fund EV initiatives via profits from their established ICE business. They're clearly playing a long game here, phasing in changes to their fleets to match consumer demand and new government mandates.
Tesla is also disrupting auto manufacturing. They are more vertically integrated with far fewer suppliers than legacy auto. They introduced gigapress to create aluminum castings, and structural battery packs that reduce vehicle weight and the number of welds and parts needed for the frame. Tesla is manufacturing their own batteries and have brought innovation into play as well there with there 4680 cells and dry manufacturing process. That’s just a few for starters.
Have you ever walked into a legacy dealership and asked to test drive an EV? I have and its comical. They typically have one EV sales guy, who may or may not be working that day. If you’ve done any homework ahead of time, you will already know more abouth the EV than the salesperson. There will only be a couple of EVs on the lot and within 5 minutes of walking in the door the salesperson will try to steer you towards an ICE purchase. The above is an accurate description of the dealership EV experience in 90% of the country right now, with exceptions in high density EV areas. Compare that experience to ordering a Tesla and not having to run the dealership gauntlet.
To be clear, I don't think Tesla will become unprofitable anytime soon, and I do believe their volumes will continue to increase. But will it increase fast enough to justify the stock's very high PE ratio. Put another way, TSLA's valuation is higher than the other top 4 automakers COMBINED (https://companiesmarketcap.com/automakers/largest-automakers-by-market-cap/). From an investment point of view, it's an outlier and not in a good way.A forward PE of 28 for a company increasing unit growth 50% Y-on-Y and ~30% gross margin ain't that high.
Come back with a comprehensive analysis if you want to be taken seriously rather than dismissed as a legacy fanboy. You should probably start with relative debt load and other obligations, but you do you.
If you're really on top of things, you will also consider the "stranded value" of those manufacturer's ICE production facilities. Many, many billions of dollars of facilities, soon to be worthless.
The difference, of course, is that I'm not claiming Ford or any legacy automaker is a good investment. I can argue that TSLA isn't a good investment while remaining neutral on legacy companies as investments.
Hard to argue that legacy autos aren’t good investments at the same time arguing Tesla is a bad investment. Tesla bears routinely point to the imminent competition coming from legacy auto as proof of Tesla’s inflated valuation. Isn’t good and bad largely dictated in relative terms by the competition in this case?
The transition from animal power to mechanized vehicles was a much larger shift in innovation than ICE -> BEV.Is it? Doesn't seem obviously so to me. How about going through your rationale?
Be sure to keep in mind the "refuel at home" equivalence for animal power and BEVs, etc.
Horses are living creatures that require effort to keep alive even when not in use. As living creatures they're limited to a daily range of 10-20 miles, depending on load and conditions. Automobiles don't have any of these limitations, but are a lot more technologically sophisticated. A horse drawn buggy is relatively simple to create and assemble, which was typically created by a craftsman. Whereas the automobile required thousands of moving parts, specialized engineering, factories, and assembly lines.
Other than the drive-train, the manufacturing process for BEV and ICE vehicles is more-or-less the same. Suspension, body, seats, interior, etc. An ICE drive-train has around 2000+ moving parts, whereas a BEV has around 20, so the complexity of the BEV supply chain and manufacturing process is actually lower, which means a lower barrier to entry for competitors.
I'm not a legacy fanboy, but neither am I a Tesla fanboy. It's worth noting that legacy makers aren't the only competition, as Rivian and others also enter the fray. I simply don't buy the narrative that Tesla is SO far ahead of the competition that other manufactures cannot catch up. The Mach E is a darn good EV, especially for Ford's first iteration. The legacy companies are already ramping up, not yet to Tesla's level, but I believe they will get there relatively soon.
So you think ICE vehicles and EV vehicles will reach some equilibrium state where we have both in significant numbers 15-20 years from now? That’s not how disruptions works I’m afraid. Flip phones had all the same basic functionality as smart phones (calls, texts, pictures, internet access), but I don’t know anyone under the age of 75 that still has a flip phone even though. they’re cheaper. EVs are simply a superior product. Cheaper to operate, better performance, quieter, less polluting, fewer parts, longer lasting, etc. Battery prices continue to drop and economies of scale continue to ramp. EVs are reaching price parity as we speak. It’s game over. But you enjoy your ICE, inner-tube box TV, Kodak camera, flip phone, and CDs cause there’s no real difference, right?
No that's not what I think, nor is it what I said. Nice straw man you have there :) I expect EV drive-trains will replace ICE relatively soon (like within 10-20 years) for the vast majority of every-day driving. EVs are more efficient, economical, and reliable. I don't expect ICE vehicles to completely disappear in within that time frame. Issues around towing/hauling (much higher coefficient of drag and rolling resistance) will likely necessitate a small percentage of ICE vehicles for moving large loads long distances. Battery capacity and charge rates will eventually overcome this, but I'm not sure this will happen in 10-20 years. I could be wrong about this, not going to die on this particular hill, but I think there are some difficult engineering issues to overcome for this narrow use case, so I'm somewhat skeptical.
The introduction of the automobile completely remade American society. From a new push for road networks to suburbs and car travel. It was completely revolutionary. Don't get me wrong, BEVs are great and I'm a big supporter. But let's be honest here, replacing one mode of mechanical power with another is evolutionary, not revolutionary.
To be clear, I don't think Tesla will become unprofitable anytime soon, and I do believe their volumes will continue to increase. But will it increase fast enough to justify the stock's very high PE ratio. Put another way, TSLA's valuation is higher than the other top 4 automakers COMBINED (https://companiesmarketcap.com/automakers/largest-automakers-by-market-cap/). From an investment point of view, it's an outlier and not in a good way.A forward PE of 28 for a company increasing unit growth 50% Y-on-Y and ~30% gross margin ain't that high.
Come back with a comprehensive analysis if you want to be taken seriously rather than dismissed as a legacy fanboy. You should probably start with relative debt load and other obligations, but you do you.
If you're really on top of things, you will also consider the "stranded value" of those manufacturer's ICE production facilities. Many, many billions of dollars of facilities, soon to be worthless.
The difference, of course, is that I'm not claiming Ford or any legacy automaker is a good investment. I can argue that TSLA isn't a good investment while remaining neutral on legacy companies as investments.
Hard to argue that legacy autos aren’t good investments at the same time arguing Tesla is a bad investment. Tesla bears routinely point to the imminent competition coming from legacy auto as proof of Tesla’s inflated valuation. Isn’t good and bad largely dictated in relative terms by the competition in this case?
No, it's not! It's entirely possible that the entire auto industry is not a good investment. This is really basic stuff....
To be clear, I don't think Tesla will become unprofitable anytime soon, and I do believe their volumes will continue to increase. But will it increase fast enough to justify the stock's very high PE ratio. Put another way, TSLA's valuation is higher than the other top 4 automakers COMBINED (https://companiesmarketcap.com/automakers/largest-automakers-by-market-cap/). From an investment point of view, it's an outlier and not in a good way.A forward PE of 28 for a company increasing unit growth 50% Y-on-Y and ~30% gross margin ain't that high.
Come back with a comprehensive analysis if you want to be taken seriously rather than dismissed as a legacy fanboy. You should probably start with relative debt load and other obligations, but you do you.
If you're really on top of things, you will also consider the "stranded value" of those manufacturer's ICE production facilities. Many, many billions of dollars of facilities, soon to be worthless.
The difference, of course, is that I'm not claiming Ford or any legacy automaker is a good investment. I can argue that TSLA isn't a good investment while remaining neutral on legacy companies as investments.
Hard to argue that legacy autos aren’t good investments at the same time arguing Tesla is a bad investment. Tesla bears routinely point to the imminent competition coming from legacy auto as proof of Tesla’s inflated valuation. Isn’t good and bad largely dictated in relative terms by the competition in this case?
No, it's not! It's entirely possible that the entire auto industry is not a good investment. This is really basic stuff....
So, we’re going to switch all the cars on the road from ICE to EVs in 10-20 years and not generate any winners in the process? I think we’re done here.
Might be time to close this thread. As the stock prices closes in on $500 (currently $491), I think its safe to say TSLA has turned out to be a good investment for any true long-term investor. I'll continue to hold based on my investment thesis above.
Is Tesla a good investment? Yes
It's taking me almost as much will power to not sell at $450 as it took to not sell at $180. Gotta stick to the investment thesis:
1) Is the future of energy and transportation battery electric and renewables?
2) Is Tesla the leader in EVs and battery tech?
I'll hold until the answer to either of those questions points towards no. The competition has yet to produce an EV that meets the price and specs of a 2013 Model S, let alone the 2019 variants. No other car company is building their own battery factory or a network of fast charging stations. There is no competition on the horizon (2 years out at least) and even then it doesn't matter, because a smaller percentage of a bigger pie is still more pie. Elon's goal is to push us towards a sustainable future and forcing other manufacturers to get serious about EVs is part of the plan.
I've made a 3,500% return on TSLA. I feel like that's a sign I should cash in, but its only 3.8% of my portfolio. What do you all think? I guess at this point I'm never going to lose money, so maybe just hold it until I need money (or forever and give it to my kid?).
I raise this question only because I'm not sure where something goes from an investment to speculation...I honestly don't think the company is worth 1 Trillion, but what do I know?
Tesla is a maturing company. Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative. Demand is on the rise, margins are increasing, new models are on the horizon, two new factories will start production in the next 1-3 months. The energy storage and grid services side of the business is just getting started. FSD is more speculative, but could be massively profitable if solved fully. I personally won’t be shedding any of my shares in the next 2-3 years at least.
Airlines, as a whole, have returned investors exactly zero in their entire history.
So yes, there are scenarios where EVs are wildly popular, many companies are successful at making them, and they're all bad investments.
-W
I will buy the competition is coming narrative as soon as someone points to a realistic pathway for another EV manufacturer to produce a million EVs in 2023 or 2 million in 2024.(bolded)
You do realize Tesla is already supplying Pepsi with Class 8 semis capable of pulling full loads 500 miles on a single charge?
We weren’t talking about transportation infrastructure being disrupted only the means of transportation. I you believe EVs will replace ICE within 10-20 years, as you say, then I don’t understand how Tesla isn’t a big winner because in that scenario every EV that every manufacturer can make for at least the next decade is going to be instantly purchased to replace an ICE vehicle, which puts Tesla on a glide path to selling 10 million vehicles/yr by the end of the decade (low estimate). You seem to be holding contradictory positions. EV disruption happens, but Tesla somehow doesn’t reap huge benefits as the leader in EV tech and production capacity?
And sorry, if you think moving our entire ground transportation system from liquid fossil fuels to electricity is evolution and not revolution, I don’t know that we’re on the same page. This has huge climate implications, huge geopolitical implications, huge urban health implications, and huge financial market implications. There are going to be big winners and losers and the losers aren’t going quietly. It’s honestly hard to overstate the magnitude and implications of this disruption. Trillion dollar industries, utilities, oil and gas, and auto manufacturing are being disrupted simultaneously.
You do realize Tesla is already supplying Pepsi with Class 8 semis capable of pulling full loads 500 miles on a single charge?
You do realize that there's a huge difference between short haul and long haul trucking, right? Local area fixed routes will work well for Tesla Semi. That's not what I'm talking about. The 500 mile range is a best case scenario (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv44W7xa4IU). Have you driven across the vast stretches of the west? Mountain passes, long gradients, headwinds, very cold winter temps -- these all significantly reduce range. Charging very large batteries at scale will require some grid level investments. Again, we'll eventually work out the details, but IMO it's going to take a while longer.We weren’t talking about transportation infrastructure being disrupted only the means of transportation. I you believe EVs will replace ICE within 10-20 years, as you say, then I don’t understand how Tesla isn’t a big winner because in that scenario every EV that every manufacturer can make for at least the next decade is going to be instantly purchased to replace an ICE vehicle, which puts Tesla on a glide path to selling 10 million vehicles/yr by the end of the decade (low estimate). You seem to be holding contradictory positions. EV disruption happens, but Tesla somehow doesn’t reap huge benefits as the leader in EV tech and production capacity?
And sorry, if you think moving our entire ground transportation system from liquid fossil fuels to electricity is evolution and not revolution, I don’t know that we’re on the same page. This has huge climate implications, huge geopolitical implications, huge urban health implications, and huge financial market implications. There are going to be big winners and losers and the losers aren’t going quietly. It’s honestly hard to overstate the magnitude and implications of this disruption. Trillion dollar industries, utilities, oil and gas, and auto manufacturing are being disrupted simultaneously.
For sure, EVs will disrupt the energy market. But we're talking about the automotive industry here. Will the shift to EVs fundamentally change anything for the average driver? No, not really. They will mostly charge at home instead of filling up at a gas station. Vehicles will last longer (which is bad for the overall profitability of the industry). The air will be cleaner with less GHG emissions. All good things, but nothing revolutionary.
Keep moving the goal posts.
Airlines, as a whole, have returned investors exactly zero in their entire history.
So yes, there are scenarios where EVs are wildly popular, many companies are successful at making them, and they're all bad investments.
-W
What if in theory, one company found a way to mass produce EVs with 30% margins. Theoretically speaking that company might reward investors handsomely.
Everyone switched from flip phones to smart phones, and Apple seemed profited from that transition by leading that the transition with a superior product and previously unheard of margins. Sound familiar...
It just flies against convention to think a disruption of this level happens without resulting in clear winners and losers.
Airlines are service providers. They’re not manufacturing a disruptive technology. Boeing or Airbus would be more comparable if you’re going to use air transport as any sort of analogous situation.
Then I suggest not using them as your basis of comparison.To be clear, I don't think Tesla will become unprofitable anytime soon, and I do believe their volumes will continue to increase. But will it increase fast enough to justify the stock's very high PE ratio. Put another way, TSLA's valuation is higher than the other top 4 automakers COMBINED (https://companiesmarketcap.com/automakers/largest-automakers-by-market-cap/). From an investment point of view, it's an outlier and not in a good way.A forward PE of 28 for a company increasing unit growth 50% Y-on-Y and ~30% gross margin ain't that high.
Come back with a comprehensive analysis if you want to be taken seriously rather than dismissed as a legacy fanboy. You should probably start with relative debt load and other obligations, but you do you.
If you're really on top of things, you will also consider the "stranded value" of those manufacturer's ICE production facilities. Many, many billions of dollars of facilities, soon to be worthless.
The difference, of course, is that I'm not claiming Ford or any legacy automaker is a good investment. I can argue that TSLA isn't a good investment while remaining neutral on legacy companies as investments.
Their comparison wasn't actually relevant, they jumped straight to mass produced, highly complex ICE vehicles for their comparison.The transition from animal power to mechanized vehicles was a much larger shift in innovation than ICE -> BEV.Is it? Doesn't seem obviously so to me. How about going through your rationale?
Be sure to keep in mind the "refuel at home" equivalence for animal power and BEVs, etc.
I'd be curious to hear more on this too. The first decade or two of automobiles......some thought horse drawn were superior.....they were like motorized bicycles......
@ColoradoTribe To my question asked up thread that was ignored: You're on the record claiming TSLA was a good investment over the past several years. In the context of this thread, I believe this is understood to mean that TLSA was a good purchase at the time. Just a few samples:
TSLA is down almost 60% for the year. Do you still consider this a good investment? Because those considering buying TSLA should be aware of your definition of a good investment before they put their little green soldiers at risk. If it hasn't been a good investment, what went wrong in your forecasting? Looking back in your history, you're making the same points about how far ahead Tesla is compared to others, battery tech, their production lines and innovation. And yet this hasn't translated to a growing stock price. What happened?
Then I suggest not using them as your basis of comparison.To be clear, I don't think Tesla will become unprofitable anytime soon, and I do believe their volumes will continue to increase. But will it increase fast enough to justify the stock's very high PE ratio. Put another way, TSLA's valuation is higher than the other top 4 automakers COMBINED (https://companiesmarketcap.com/automakers/largest-automakers-by-market-cap/). From an investment point of view, it's an outlier and not in a good way.A forward PE of 28 for a company increasing unit growth 50% Y-on-Y and ~30% gross margin ain't that high.
Come back with a comprehensive analysis if you want to be taken seriously rather than dismissed as a legacy fanboy. You should probably start with relative debt load and other obligations, but you do you.
If you're really on top of things, you will also consider the "stranded value" of those manufacturer's ICE production facilities. Many, many billions of dollars of facilities, soon to be worthless.
The difference, of course, is that I'm not claiming Ford or any legacy automaker is a good investment. I can argue that TSLA isn't a good investment while remaining neutral on legacy companies as investments.
No goal posts have been moved. I thought "moving large loads long distances" would be understood as long haul trucking. Sorry if that wasn't clear.I suggest doing an actual analysis under the trucking rules for a single driver in the USA and presume that (as promised) the Semi can get back up to 80% charge during the mandated 30 minute rest break. Does this require an appropriately placed charging facility? Of course.
@ColoradoTribe To my question asked up thread that was ignored: You're on the record claiming TSLA was a good investment over the past several years. In the context of this thread, I believe this is understood to mean that TLSA was a good purchase at the time. Just a few samples:
TSLA is down almost 60% for the year. Do you still consider this a good investment? Because those considering buying TSLA should be aware of your definition of a good investment before they put their little green soldiers at risk. If it hasn't been a good investment, what went wrong in your forecasting? Looking back in your history, you're making the same points about how far ahead Tesla is compared to others, battery tech, their production lines and innovation. And yet this hasn't translated to a growing stock price. What happened?
Apparently you either forgot about the Tesla stock split, or just didn't bother looking at a chart. Even at today's lows, TSLA stock is worth ~5x as much as when @ColoradoTribe made those posts you are deriding.
Volatile stocks are volatile. Fixating on one-year performance of a volatile stock is just stupid.
Tesla (TSLA) has been a monster stock over much of its history, especially from its stratospheric run from mid-2019 to late 2021. But in 2022, Tesla stock has been a big loser, on track to plunge 57% as of Dec. 16.Source: https://www.investors.com/news/tesla-stock-on-track-for-worst-year-ever-elon-musk-ev-giant-faces-4-big-headwinds/
Your analysis is grossly oversimplistic. What's the growth rate of those companies (significantly negative, vs +~50% unit growth annually) - what about margins? Are any of them close to 30% gross margins? How about on their BEVs? Are they making any positive gross margin at all on their BEVs? What kind of assets do they have? Billions of dollars in soon-to-be-stranded ICE manufacturing? (Yep.) How about debt? Massive.Then I suggest not using them as your basis of comparison.Why? Please explain. I simply pointed out that TSLA is valued more than the top 4 other car companies combined. I don't have to claim these other companies are a good investment for this to be a meaningful comparison. In fact, if these other companies are overvalued (i.e. a bad investment, though I'm not making this claim) then TSLA's valuation relative to other (overpriced) competitors is even more concerning.
No, I did not forget about the stock split. Come now, this is getting ridiculous.I absolutely agree this is getting ridiculous.
Or, just search Google for TSLA then click on YTD. As of today, down 62% for the year. Online graphs are adjusted historically for stock splits.I already addressed this - and you blew it off. Your fixation on YTD is amazing - I suggest a better home would be r/wallstreetbets.
No, I did not forget about the stock split. Come now, this is getting ridiculous.I absolutely agree this is getting ridiculous.
You totally blew off that TSLA is up 5x since that post was made, even accounting for recent (large!) losses.
If you didn't forget about it, you are being deliberately disingenuous.
Please show us which of your investments yielded 5x across the past 3 years.QuoteOr, just search Google for TSLA then click on YTD. As of today, down 62% for the year. Online graphs are adjusted historically for stock splits.I already addressed this - and you blew it off. Your fixation on YTD is amazing - I suggest a better home would be r/wallstreetbets.
here ye! here ye! here ye!
let it be known i bought tesla today - 100 shares at 683.11 (on today's dip) - in my roth. I had sold my VSGAX last week
I will be answering the op questions daily. silently. to myself.
Welcome aboard. Can’t say if you’ll be up or down in two days or two months, but think you’ll be pretty happy two years from now and beyond. Beyond making money the natural world needs Tesla to succeed, so take pleasure in that while we wait for the stock price to ramp up again. Bought a few more shares myself on this dip.
A few points that encapsulate Tesla's valuation relative to legacy autos.
Tesla total gross margin for 2021 will be in the neighborhood of 25%. Ford’s total gross margin for 2020 was 10%.
Tesla sales are increasing at an average rate of 50% yoy. Legacy auto sales are stagnant to declining YOY.
Tesla is 100% EV and by this time next year will have 4 factories dedicated exclusively to cranking out EVs. Legacy auto will still be trying to balance ICE production and a transition to EVs. Placing billions into new EV infrastructure, battery procurement, and supply chain, while simultaneously trying to not strand their ICE infrastructure.
Anyone focusing on the number of vehicles sold currently to justify Tesla’s valuation relative to legacy auto is missing or ignoring the yoy growth and increasing margins, which is the real driver behind Tesla’s valuation. That's before you even start to consider software as a service, insurance, FSD, solar roof, energy storage and grid services.
Tesla has launched 6 new vehicles in their entire history. That is what GM or Ford does in a couple years.The transition from animal power to mechanized vehicles was a much larger shift in innovation than ICE -> BEV.Is it? Doesn't seem obviously so to me. How about going through your rationale?
Be sure to keep in mind the "refuel at home" equivalence for animal power and BEVs, etc.
Horses are living creatures that require effort to keep alive even when not in use. As living creatures they're limited to a daily range of 10-20 miles, depending on load and conditions. Automobiles don't have any of these limitations, but are a lot more technologically sophisticated. A horse drawn buggy is relatively simple to create and assemble, which was typically created by a craftsman. Whereas the automobile required thousands of moving parts, specialized engineering, factories, and assembly lines.
Other than the drive-train, the manufacturing process for BEV and ICE vehicles is more-or-less the same. Suspension, body, seats, interior, etc. An ICE drive-train has around 2000+ moving parts, whereas a BEV has around 20, so the complexity of the BEV supply chain and manufacturing process is actually lower, which means a lower barrier to entry for competitors.
I'm not a legacy fanboy, but neither am I a Tesla fanboy. It's worth noting that legacy makers aren't the only competition, as Rivian and others also enter the fray. I simply don't buy the narrative that Tesla is SO far ahead of the competition that other manufactures cannot catch up. The Mach E is a darn good EV, especially for Ford's first iteration. The legacy companies are already ramping up, not yet to Tesla's level, but I believe they will get there relatively soon.
I will buy the competition is coming narrative as soon as someone points to a realistic pathway for another EV manufacturer to produce a million EVs in 2023 or 2 million in 2024. Tesla will produce 1.45 million this year, around 2.5 million in 2023, and close to 4 million in 2024. And most importantly, Tesla has the EV dedicated factories, raw materials, supplier contracts, battery cell/pack supply, and logistics already in place to achieve those production numbers. No other manufacturer does, which is why they’re playing catch-up and will be for years. You don’t just wake up one day flip a switch in the factory from ICE to EV.
One thing that contributed to Tesla's success so far is gaining customer base from people who used to buy hondas and toyotas and make them spend 50-60k on their cars. A customer base that didnt exist before and would not spent that much on a car.
This thread started 4 years ago, so I looked at 3 year and 5 year performance on Morningstar and raised it to the 3rd and 5th power, respectively.No, I did not forget about the stock split. Come now, this is getting ridiculous.I absolutely agree this is getting ridiculous.
You totally blew off that TSLA is up 5x since that post was made, even accounting for recent (large!) losses.
If you didn't forget about it, you are being deliberately disingenuous.
Please show us which of your investments yielded 5x across the past 3 years.QuoteOr, just search Google for TSLA then click on YTD. As of today, down 62% for the year. Online graphs are adjusted historically for stock splits.I already addressed this - and you blew it off. Your fixation on YTD is amazing - I suggest a better home would be r/wallstreetbets.
Tesla has launched 6 new vehicles in their entire history. That is what GM or Ford does in a couple years.The transition from animal power to mechanized vehicles was a much larger shift in innovation than ICE -> BEV.Is it? Doesn't seem obviously so to me. How about going through your rationale?
Be sure to keep in mind the "refuel at home" equivalence for animal power and BEVs, etc.
Horses are living creatures that require effort to keep alive even when not in use. As living creatures they're limited to a daily range of 10-20 miles, depending on load and conditions. Automobiles don't have any of these limitations, but are a lot more technologically sophisticated. A horse drawn buggy is relatively simple to create and assemble, which was typically created by a craftsman. Whereas the automobile required thousands of moving parts, specialized engineering, factories, and assembly lines.
Other than the drive-train, the manufacturing process for BEV and ICE vehicles is more-or-less the same. Suspension, body, seats, interior, etc. An ICE drive-train has around 2000+ moving parts, whereas a BEV has around 20, so the complexity of the BEV supply chain and manufacturing process is actually lower, which means a lower barrier to entry for competitors.
I'm not a legacy fanboy, but neither am I a Tesla fanboy. It's worth noting that legacy makers aren't the only competition, as Rivian and others also enter the fray. I simply don't buy the narrative that Tesla is SO far ahead of the competition that other manufactures cannot catch up. The Mach E is a darn good EV, especially for Ford's first iteration. The legacy companies are already ramping up, not yet to Tesla's level, but I believe they will get there relatively soon.
I will buy the competition is coming narrative as soon as someone points to a realistic pathway for another EV manufacturer to produce a million EVs in 2023 or 2 million in 2024. Tesla will produce 1.45 million this year, around 2.5 million in 2023, and close to 4 million in 2024. And most importantly, Tesla has the EV dedicated factories, raw materials, supplier contracts, battery cell/pack supply, and logistics already in place to achieve those production numbers. No other manufacturer does, which is why they’re playing catch-up and will be for years. You don’t just wake up one day flip a switch in the factory from ICE to EV.
If you think the other manufacturers cannot scale at a dizzying pace, you're in for a surprise. There is a reason Ford and GM are beating the Cybertruck to market.
Tesla will expand their vehicle offering as fast as the battery supply allows. The Semi truck wasn’t delayed. Tesla had to choose between producing one semi or five Model Ys with the same available batteries. Pushing the Semi out was the better, more profitable business decision.
Earlier this year, the beverage giant said it expected to take delivery of those 15 Semi trucks by the end of 2021, but that was before Tesla confirmed another delay to the program.(bolded)
Tesla will expand their vehicle offering as fast as the battery supply allows. The Semi truck wasn’t delayed. Tesla had to choose between producing one semi or five Model Ys with the same available batteries. Pushing the Semi out was the better, more profitable business decision.
It might've been a good business decision to focus on the Model Y but you're not using the same definition of "delayed" as the rest of us. Pepsi was expecting a delivery last year. Note the date on the article (Nov 08, 2021).Quote from: https://insideevs.com/news/546341/pepsico-tesla-semi-deliveries-q42021/Earlier this year, the beverage giant said it expected to take delivery of those 15 Semi trucks by the end of 2021, but that was before Tesla confirmed another delay to the program.(bolded)
Musk is a vaporware master.
How is a delivered product vaporware?
Tesla finances:
https://twitter.com/ChrisBloomstran/status/1603371089853382657
In the beginning, Tesla was a dream. From that point to today, the company raised $32 billion in equity capital and earned a cumulative profit of $9 billion. Book value, firm equity, sums to $41 billion. The CEO has sold $40 billion of shares (all given as options), and counting.
Does Musk selling at this level bother any holders?
Tesla has launched 6 new vehicles in their entire history. That is what GM or Ford does in a couple years.The transition from animal power to mechanized vehicles was a much larger shift in innovation than ICE -> BEV.Is it? Doesn't seem obviously so to me. How about going through your rationale?
Be sure to keep in mind the "refuel at home" equivalence for animal power and BEVs, etc.
Horses are living creatures that require effort to keep alive even when not in use. As living creatures they're limited to a daily range of 10-20 miles, depending on load and conditions. Automobiles don't have any of these limitations, but are a lot more technologically sophisticated. A horse drawn buggy is relatively simple to create and assemble, which was typically created by a craftsman. Whereas the automobile required thousands of moving parts, specialized engineering, factories, and assembly lines.
Other than the drive-train, the manufacturing process for BEV and ICE vehicles is more-or-less the same. Suspension, body, seats, interior, etc. An ICE drive-train has around 2000+ moving parts, whereas a BEV has around 20, so the complexity of the BEV supply chain and manufacturing process is actually lower, which means a lower barrier to entry for competitors.
I'm not a legacy fanboy, but neither am I a Tesla fanboy. It's worth noting that legacy makers aren't the only competition, as Rivian and others also enter the fray. I simply don't buy the narrative that Tesla is SO far ahead of the competition that other manufactures cannot catch up. The Mach E is a darn good EV, especially for Ford's first iteration. The legacy companies are already ramping up, not yet to Tesla's level, but I believe they will get there relatively soon.
I will buy the competition is coming narrative as soon as someone points to a realistic pathway for another EV manufacturer to produce a million EVs in 2023 or 2 million in 2024. Tesla will produce 1.45 million this year, around 2.5 million in 2023, and close to 4 million in 2024. And most importantly, Tesla has the EV dedicated factories, raw materials, supplier contracts, battery cell/pack supply, and logistics already in place to achieve those production numbers. No other manufacturer does, which is why they’re playing catch-up and will be for years. You don’t just wake up one day flip a switch in the factory from ICE to EV.
If you think the other manufacturers cannot scale at a dizzying pace, you're in for a surprise. There is a reason Ford and GM are beating the Cybertruck to market.
Would you rather invest in a company that offers 10 different vehicles, but sells 200,000/year (at a loss) or invest in a company that offers 4 different vehicles but sells 1.4 million a year (for 30% margin)?
Tesla is supply constrained. The are selling every vehicle they can make. There are sunk costs to rolling out new vehicles. As a Tesla investor I don’t want them rolling out new lines until they have the battery supply to support new vehicle lines. Why spend all the money rolling out a new vehicle if you’re already selling your existing vehicles for 30 margin as fast as you can make them? Who cares how many different vehicles Ford and GM are proposing to making if they’re not making money on the ones they are selling.
Tesla will expand their vehicle offering as fast as the battery supply allows. The Semi truck wasn’t delayed. Tesla had to choose between producing one semi or five Model Ys with the same available batteries. Pushing the Semi out was the better, more profitable business decision.
Same with the promised, cheaper sedan. Tesla could produce that vehicle today, no problem, but why would they? Why would they manufacture a cheaper vehicle with 20% margin instead of a more expensive vehicle with 30% margin when they are battery cell constrained?
Same folks criticizing Tesla for not bringing more vehicles to market sooner would be critiziing Tesla if the profit margins dropped.
Tesla will expand their vehicle offering as fast as the battery supply allows. The Semi truck wasn’t delayed. Tesla had to choose between producing one semi or five Model Ys with the same available batteries. Pushing the Semi out was the better, more profitable business decision.
It might've been a good business decision to focus on the Model Y but you're not using the same definition of "delayed" as the rest of us. Pepsi was expecting a delivery last year. Note the date on the article (Nov 08, 2021).Quote from: https://insideevs.com/news/546341/pepsico-tesla-semi-deliveries-q42021/Earlier this year, the beverage giant said it expected to take delivery of those 15 Semi trucks by the end of 2021, but that was before Tesla confirmed another delay to the program.(bolded)
Musk is a vaporware master.
How is a delivered product vaporware?
GM was going to make the Nikola Badger. Gone.
Ford said they'd have autonomous vehicles by 2021 in 2018. They've since shuttered Argo AI.
Toyota said in 2019 50% of their sales would be EV by 2025. Now it's 2030 and only 1/3.
Nissan said the Ariya would be released by the end of 2021. Now fall of 2022.
Honda has had more EV concepts than EV sales.
https://www.goodwood.com/grr/road/news/2021/4/nineteen-cars-that-were-never-built/ (https://www.goodwood.com/grr/road/news/2021/4/nineteen-cars-that-were-never-built/)
...10 minutes of looking.
Product delays are endless from many companies. Talking points implying this is unique to Tesla or even the auto industry is disingenuous at best.
Tesla will expand their vehicle offering as fast as the battery supply allows. The Semi truck wasn’t delayed. Tesla had to choose between producing one semi or five Model Ys with the same available batteries. Pushing the Semi out was the better, more profitable business decision.
It might've been a good business decision to focus on the Model Y but you're not using the same definition of "delayed" as the rest of us. Pepsi was expecting a delivery last year. Note the date on the article (Nov 08, 2021).Quote from: https://insideevs.com/news/546341/pepsico-tesla-semi-deliveries-q42021/Earlier this year, the beverage giant said it expected to take delivery of those 15 Semi trucks by the end of 2021, but that was before Tesla confirmed another delay to the program.(bolded)
Musk is a vaporware master.
How is a delivered product vaporware?
In the computer industry, vaporware (or vapourware) is a product, typically computer hardware or software, that is announced to the general public but is late or never actually manufactured nor officially cancelled. Use of the word has broadened to include products such as automobiles.
GM was going to make the Nikola Badger. Gone.
[etc.]
...10 minutes of looking.
Product delays are endless from many companies. Talking points implying this is unique to Tesla or even the auto industry is disingenuous at best.
How is a delivered product vaporware?
Let's see, still waiting for: Cybertruck (promised 2021, was clearly vaporware to take the wind out of Rivian's sails), Full Self Driving (what a rip-off for those that paid for this), 1M Robo Taxis by 2020 (nope!), and Semi that was promised 2019 but has just now (end 2022) delivered it's first vehicles. Always free superchargers. The $35k Model 3. And more! https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a35350331/checking-in-on-all-the-promises-elon-musk-and-tesla-have-made/
Tesla will expand their vehicle offering as fast as the battery supply allows. The Semi truck wasn’t delayed. Tesla had to choose between producing one semi or five Model Ys with the same available batteries. Pushing the Semi out was the better, more profitable business decision.
It might've been a good business decision to focus on the Model Y but you're not using the same definition of "delayed" as the rest of us. Pepsi was expecting a delivery last year. Note the date on the article (Nov 08, 2021).Quote from: https://insideevs.com/news/546341/pepsico-tesla-semi-deliveries-q42021/Earlier this year, the beverage giant said it expected to take delivery of those 15 Semi trucks by the end of 2021, but that was before Tesla confirmed another delay to the program.(bolded)
Musk is a vaporware master.
How is a delivered product vaporware?
So that we're clear on the definition of "vaporware":Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VaporwareIn the computer industry, vaporware (or vapourware) is a product, typically computer hardware or software, that is announced to the general public but is late or never actually manufactured nor officially cancelled. Use of the word has broadened to include products such as automobiles.QuoteGM was going to make the Nikola Badger. Gone.
[etc.]
...10 minutes of looking.
Product delays are endless from many companies. Talking points implying this is unique to Tesla or even the auto industry is disingenuous at best.
My post, which was in response to a post that never mentioned GM or Ford or Toyota, was a counter to the claim that the Tesla semi wasn't delayed. As Musk is the CEO of Tesla, which produces the Tesla semi, it seems appropriate to mention him and his vaporware comments.
Or are you seriously trying to suggest that the semi was not delayed?
Oct 26, 2021 (date of bullish comment to Abe) - $359.01LOL! Goalpost shift rejected. That's almost 2 years after the post your referred to.
Dec 16, 20221 - $150.23
That's a 40% drop, not a 5x return.
Tesla finances:That "analysis" is overly simplistic to the point of idiocy.
https://twitter.com/ChrisBloomstran/status/1603371089853382657
In the beginning, Tesla was a dream. From that point to today, the company raised $32 billion in equity capital and earned a cumulative profit of $9 billion. Book value, firm equity, sums to $41 billion. The CEO has sold $40 billion of shares (all given as options), and counting.
Does Musk selling at this level bother any holders?
In a dynamic industry that is currently being disrupted? I would prefer a company that has shown an ability to bring new product to market quickly as they are poised to take advantage of the market changes.Tesla has launched 6 new vehicles in their entire history. That is what GM or Ford does in a couple years.The transition from animal power to mechanized vehicles was a much larger shift in innovation than ICE -> BEV.Is it? Doesn't seem obviously so to me. How about going through your rationale?
Be sure to keep in mind the "refuel at home" equivalence for animal power and BEVs, etc.
Horses are living creatures that require effort to keep alive even when not in use. As living creatures they're limited to a daily range of 10-20 miles, depending on load and conditions. Automobiles don't have any of these limitations, but are a lot more technologically sophisticated. A horse drawn buggy is relatively simple to create and assemble, which was typically created by a craftsman. Whereas the automobile required thousands of moving parts, specialized engineering, factories, and assembly lines.
Other than the drive-train, the manufacturing process for BEV and ICE vehicles is more-or-less the same. Suspension, body, seats, interior, etc. An ICE drive-train has around 2000+ moving parts, whereas a BEV has around 20, so the complexity of the BEV supply chain and manufacturing process is actually lower, which means a lower barrier to entry for competitors.
I'm not a legacy fanboy, but neither am I a Tesla fanboy. It's worth noting that legacy makers aren't the only competition, as Rivian and others also enter the fray. I simply don't buy the narrative that Tesla is SO far ahead of the competition that other manufactures cannot catch up. The Mach E is a darn good EV, especially for Ford's first iteration. The legacy companies are already ramping up, not yet to Tesla's level, but I believe they will get there relatively soon.
I will buy the competition is coming narrative as soon as someone points to a realistic pathway for another EV manufacturer to produce a million EVs in 2023 or 2 million in 2024. Tesla will produce 1.45 million this year, around 2.5 million in 2023, and close to 4 million in 2024. And most importantly, Tesla has the EV dedicated factories, raw materials, supplier contracts, battery cell/pack supply, and logistics already in place to achieve those production numbers. No other manufacturer does, which is why they’re playing catch-up and will be for years. You don’t just wake up one day flip a switch in the factory from ICE to EV.
If you think the other manufacturers cannot scale at a dizzying pace, you're in for a surprise. There is a reason Ford and GM are beating the Cybertruck to market.
Would you rather invest in a company that offers 10 different vehicles, but sells 200,000/year (at a loss) or invest in a company that offers 4 different vehicles but sells 1.4 million a year (for 30% margin)?
Tesla is supply constrained. The are selling every vehicle they can make. There are sunk costs to rolling out new vehicles. As a Tesla investor I don’t want them rolling out new lines until they have the battery supply to support new vehicle lines. Why spend all the money rolling out a new vehicle if you’re already selling your existing vehicles for 30 margin as fast as you can make them? Who cares how many different vehicles Ford and GM are proposing to making if they’re not making money on the ones they are selling.
Tesla will expand their vehicle offering as fast as the battery supply allows. The Semi truck wasn’t delayed. Tesla had to choose between producing one semi or five Model Ys with the same available batteries. Pushing the Semi out was the better, more profitable business decision.
Same with the promised, cheaper sedan. Tesla could produce that vehicle today, no problem, but why would they? Why would they manufacture a cheaper vehicle with 20% margin instead of a more expensive vehicle with 30% margin when they are battery cell constrained?
Same folks criticizing Tesla for not bringing more vehicles to market sooner would be critiziing Tesla if the profit margins dropped.
This thread is almost 5 years old. The bears have been wrong all along and missed out on gigantic gains. Some bears say they have TSLA in their index funds and so they are set. But if they're so negative on TSLA, they should just short the stock or at least short enough to offset their TSLA in their index funds. After all, there is no point in holding a stock when you're so sure of the gloom and doom. Bulls always put their money where their mouth is.
This thread is almost 5 years old. The bears have been wrong all along and missed out on gigantic gains.
This thread is almost 5 years old. The bears have been wrong all along and missed out on gigantic gains.
The price of Tesla is now down to levels last seen in November 2020, so "the bears" have been right for at least the past 25 months, not counting opportunity cost.
This thread is almost 5 years old. The bears have been wrong all along and missed out on gigantic gains.
The price of Tesla is now down to levels last seen in November 2020, so "the bears" have been right for at least the past 25 months, not counting opportunity cost.
The price of VTSAX/VTI is also down to levels last seen in December 2020. Not a very compelling argument there.
This thread is almost 5 years old. The bears have been wrong all along and missed out on gigantic gains. Some bears say they have TSLA in their index funds and so they are set. But if they're so negative on TSLA, they should just short the stock or at least short enough to offset their TSLA in their index funds. After all, there is no point in holding a stock when you're so sure of the gloom and doom. Bulls always put their money where their mouth is.
The thread is about whether TSLA is a good investment or not. That can change over time as macro environments change, competition changes, and the company itself changes. If you bought at the right time, TSLA certainly has been a good investment. That doesn't necessarily mean that it currently is. Tesla now is a much different company than it was 5+ years ago. They resemble a traditional carmaker more and more with each passing day of growth. If you bought a house at the right time in the last 10 years that's probably seen huge gains in value on paper as well. That doesn't mean that now is the right time to buy more homes, or for an outsider to buy in. The value of any asset at a given time is dependent on many factors.
If Elon's outside interests can have significant impacts on the share price and investor return, then the share price isn't based solely on business fundamentals. Basing decisions entirely on those fundamentals seems a bit myopic or dismissive of the outside risks unrelated to the company's performance at all. The stock has been boosted in the past by some amount of irrational support for Elon, and seems to be seeing some amount of erosion due to Elon's antics in recent months. We can argue about how much impact that emotion has had/is having but I think it's easy to see that it's played some role in the value of the stock, and is likely to continue. Not every investor is rational. There's a speculative nature about TSLA that is much higher than other individual stocks simply because the leader is so high profile, and the stock's value can change on the whims of Elon's twitter fingers or what he does in his other companies.
This thread is almost 5 years old. The bears have been wrong all along and missed out on gigantic gains. Some bears say they have TSLA in their index funds and so they are set. But if they're so negative on TSLA, they should just short the stock or at least short enough to offset their TSLA in their index funds. After all, there is no point in holding a stock when you're so sure of the gloom and doom. Bulls always put their money where their mouth is.
So maybe some of you wiser ones can help me interpret this. I'm taking numbers from my td ameritrade accout information.Suspect your data is not correct.
Tesla's PE is listed as 46 vs 35 for industry - so higher earning multiple which could be justified by much strong growth.
...
So maybe some of you wiser ones can help me interpret this. I'm taking numbers from my td ameritrade accout information.Suspect your data is not correct.
Tesla's PE is listed as 46 vs 35 for industry - so higher earning multiple which could be justified by much strong growth.
...
https://finance.yahoo.com/screener/predefined/auto_manufacturers/
PE ratios:
Tesla 43
Toyota 10
GM 6
Ford 5
Stellantis 3
Honda 8
Single digit ratios are normal during good times for cyclicals like car manufacturers.
Tesla is different, of course, and deserves a higher multiple. 4x higher? Maybe.
So, to be a bit real here, Tesla's stock is way down. But there is downward pressure on all stocks, indexes down 20% YTD, with Nasdaq down 33% - so that needs to be factored in. Telsa value shot up way too far/fast last half of 2021 so something of a pullback only made sense, even if the market as a whole did not. Now there is additional downward pressure due to Musk antics on twitter, and perhaps the perception he is doing nothing to lead tesla at all at the moment.
To me, this is a buying opportunity and I am buying. While I have a lot of confidence in Tesla and their products, I do worry about Musk's social influence. Could his 180 in politics and affiliations bring in new Tesla customers? I'm not convinced! They don't even beleive in climate change or harmful health effects of air pollution! But it is possible, I suppose.....Does he have a strategy here? Is this deliberate? Is he as unhinged as he seems to me? I really don't know, and neither does anyone else, I'm sure! Sometimes, I think he's having a mental health crisis to be honest.....
But the company I feel is solid, last 7 quarters of EPS have been positive surprises from analyst predictions.......and I for one am happy that the stock has experienced a lot of downward pressure on the price right now.....giving an opportunity to stock up a little bit, and to feel more confident it isn't over priced.
I'm also stocking up heavily on indexes in 401k, and will start with ibonds in January again...so, I don't get what the big deal is at all. Some of us think Tesla will do very well going forward, others don't.
But there is no argument to be 'won' here. 3-5 years out tesla perfomance will be the determinate.
This thread is almost 5 years old. The bears have been wrong all along and missed out on gigantic gains. Some bears say they have TSLA in their index funds and so they are set. But if they're so negative on TSLA, they should just short the stock or at least short enough to offset their TSLA in their index funds. After all, there is no point in holding a stock when you're so sure of the gloom and doom. Bulls always put their money where their mouth is.
The thread is about whether TSLA is a good investment or not. That can change over time as macro environments change, competition changes, and the company itself changes. If you bought at the right time, TSLA certainly has been a good investment. That doesn't necessarily mean that it currently is. Tesla now is a much different company than it was 5+ years ago. They resemble a traditional carmaker more and more with each passing day of growth. If you bought a house at the right time in the last 10 years that's probably seen huge gains in value on paper as well. That doesn't mean that now is the right time to buy more homes, or for an outsider to buy in. The value of any asset at a given time is dependent on many factors.
If Elon's outside interests can have significant impacts on the share price and investor return, then the share price isn't based solely on business fundamentals. Basing decisions entirely on those fundamentals seems a bit myopic or dismissive of the outside risks unrelated to the company's performance at all. The stock has been boosted in the past by some amount of irrational support for Elon, and seems to be seeing some amount of erosion due to Elon's antics in recent months. We can argue about how much impact that emotion has had/is having but I think it's easy to see that it's played some role in the value of the stock, and is likely to continue. Not every investor is rational. There's a speculative nature about TSLA that is much higher than other individual stocks simply because the leader is so high profile, and the stock's value can change on the whims of Elon's twitter fingers or what he does in his other companies.
You conveniently left out the part where I said "Tesla's sales can be affected by the following: 2022 end year sales due to the upcoming IRA; Covid spread in China; high interest rates; possible recession; Elon+Twitter, but competition is not one of the factors." The main argument of the bears has been "the competition is coming". Tesla can have problems but it's not because of the competition, at least not for a long time.
So maybe some of you wiser ones can help me interpret this. I'm taking numbers from my td ameritrade accout information.Suspect your data is not correct.
Tesla's PE is listed as 46 vs 35 for industry - so higher earning multiple which could be justified by much strong growth.
...
https://finance.yahoo.com/screener/predefined/auto_manufacturers/
PE ratios:
Tesla 43
Toyota 10
GM 6
Ford 5
Stellantis 3
Honda 8
Single digit ratios are normal during good times for cyclicals like car manufacturers.
Tesla is different, of course, and deserves a higher multiple. 4x higher? Maybe.
Ok. We have many TSLA bulls in this thread that are adamant that because it's been a great investment, that it will continue to be a great investment. They often bring up business fundamentals as justification for the share price if people question their optimism, and then they pretty much handwave any impacts from investor sentiment as if that hasn't played a role thus far, and cannot in the future. It's fine to speculate on an individual stock, and for those who've taken the chance on TSLA, they've probably been rewarded pretty well. But TSLA seems to be more impacted by sentiment than most other individual stocks, so that should be a consideration for anybody holding the stock or anybody who reads this thread and may be considering new investment. I think it's key for anybody investing in an individual stock to have a clearly defined plan for divesting from that position, and all I ever really read in this thread is irrational exuberance about buying the dip, or holding for decades, or spending six figures to fully encase oneself in the entire Tesla ecosystem. It's obvious that many of the frequent TSLA supporters are not just financially invested, but also emotionally invested in the company and that seems potentially dangerous to me.
This thread has become a dichotomy of Bulls and Bears, and I don't see a bunch from either side that indicates an honest, moderate outlook without emotion. Tesla the company has come a tremendously long way in recent years. I've been proven wrong. The stock has exploded for a number of reasons. That doesn't mean that every idea they have is great, or that there are no valid criticisms of their products, or that past performance guarantees future results. Just because somebody has concern about an investment, or criticism for a company does not mean that they don't want to see it succeed. I very seriously doubt that most of the "bears" in this thread have any financial incentive influencing their comments in this thread. They're not actively rooting against Tesla, or TSLA shareholder's returns the way that "a short" might, but the responses from the "bulls" tend to imply that there's more ill will or malice than there actually is. I just don't want to see anybody get burned badly, and it seems like a few posters may be way out over their skis with their financial and emotional investment in TSLA.
So, to be a bit real here, Tesla's stock is way down. But there is downward pressure on all stocks, indexes down 20% YTD, with Nasdaq down 33% - so that needs to be factored in. Telsa value shot up way too far/fast last half of 2021 so something of a pullback only made sense, even if the market as a whole did not. Now there is additional downward pressure due to Musk antics on twitter, and perhaps the perception he is doing nothing to lead tesla at all at the moment.
To me, this is a buying opportunity and I am buying. While I have a lot of confidence in Tesla and their products, I do worry about Musk's social influence. Could his 180 in politics and affiliations bring in new Tesla customers? I'm not convinced! They don't even beleive in climate change or harmful health effects of air pollution! But it is possible, I suppose.....Does he have a strategy here? Is this deliberate? Is he as unhinged as he seems to me? I really don't know, and neither does anyone else, I'm sure! Sometimes, I think he's having a mental health crisis to be honest.....
But the company I feel is solid, last 7 quarters of EPS have been positive surprises from analyst predictions.......and I for one am happy that the stock has experienced a lot of downward pressure on the price right now.....giving an opportunity to stock up a little bit, and to feel more confident it isn't over priced.
I'm also stocking up heavily on indexes in 401k, and will start with ibonds in January again...so, I don't get what the big deal is at all. Some of us think Tesla will do very well going forward, others don't.
But there is no argument to be 'won' here. 3-5 years out tesla perfomance will be the determinate.
May be you are obsessed with Tesla little too much?
Sounds like you invested between 70K - 100K in tesla stock and may be lost half of that so far and continue to buy more.
And bought a compact Tesla car for 50-60K, that does same function that a 15K car does.
Unless you have millions dollars in investments that is too much in one stock.
Tesla is big daddy of meme stocks. Its success so far is due to people not selling it no matter what. I think that brand has been damaged for good by EM, long term it is not a safe bet.
Be careful not catching falling knife. Be aware of sunk-cost fallacy.
So, to be a bit real here, Tesla's stock is way down. But there is downward pressure on all stocks, indexes down 20% YTD, with Nasdaq down 33% - so that needs to be factored in. Telsa value shot up way too far/fast last half of 2021 so something of a pullback only made sense, even if the market as a whole did not. Now there is additional downward pressure due to Musk antics on twitter, and perhaps the perception he is doing nothing to lead tesla at all at the moment.
To me, this is a buying opportunity and I am buying. While I have a lot of confidence in Tesla and their products, I do worry about Musk's social influence. Could his 180 in politics and affiliations bring in new Tesla customers? I'm not convinced! They don't even beleive in climate change or harmful health effects of air pollution! But it is possible, I suppose.....Does he have a strategy here? Is this deliberate? Is he as unhinged as he seems to me? I really don't know, and neither does anyone else, I'm sure! Sometimes, I think he's having a mental health crisis to be honest.....
But the company I feel is solid, last 7 quarters of EPS have been positive surprises from analyst predictions.......and I for one am happy that the stock has experienced a lot of downward pressure on the price right now.....giving an opportunity to stock up a little bit, and to feel more confident it isn't over priced.
I'm also stocking up heavily on indexes in 401k, and will start with ibonds in January again...so, I don't get what the big deal is at all. Some of us think Tesla will do very well going forward, others don't.
But there is no argument to be 'won' here. 3-5 years out tesla perfomance will be the determinate.
May be you are obsessed with Tesla little too much?
Sounds like you invested between 70K - 100K in tesla stock and may be lost half of that so far and continue to buy more.
And bought a compact Tesla car for 50-60K, that does same function that a 15K car does.
Unless you have millions dollars in investments that is too much in one stock.
Tesla is big daddy of meme stocks. Its success so far is due to people not selling it no matter what. I think that brand has been damaged for good by EM, long term it is not a safe bet.
Be careful not catching falling knife. Be aware of sunk-cost fallacy.
This thread has become a dichotomy of Bulls and Bears, and I don't see a bunch from either side that indicates an honest, moderate outlook without emotion.
For me personally - my next vehicle was always going to be a tesla. I've been planning on that for a while. That preceeded my foray into buying their stock. My reason for that wasn't because it was a luxury type vehicle. It wasn't just because it was an EV. It was because it was from an exclusively EV manufacturer deliberately trying to shift the narative on new cars and the environment. That is what gets my purchasing money. When I was first hearing about tesla, you know the narative is "can you afford to buy it?" and my narative is "can I afford NOT to buy it?" Thinking of the world, the future, climate issues, air pollution (one of my children has asthma.....we used to live near an expressway.....).
For me personally - my next vehicle was always going to be a tesla. I've been planning on that for a while. That preceeded my foray into buying their stock. My reason for that wasn't because it was a luxury type vehicle. It wasn't just because it was an EV. It was because it was from an exclusively EV manufacturer deliberately trying to shift the narative on new cars and the environment. That is what gets my purchasing money. When I was first hearing about tesla, you know the narative is "can you afford to buy it?" and my narative is "can I afford NOT to buy it?" Thinking of the world, the future, climate issues, air pollution (one of my children has asthma.....we used to live near an expressway.....).
If you don't care about the luxury aspects, the Bolt has essentially the same range as the Model 3 standard edition, but at less than half the price ($26k vs $54k).
This thread is almost 5 years old. The bears have been wrong all along and missed out on gigantic gains. Some bears say they have TSLA in their index funds and so they are set. But if they're so negative on TSLA, they should just short the stock or at least short enough to offset their TSLA in their index funds. After all, there is no point in holding a stock when you're so sure of the gloom and doom. Bulls always put their money where their mouth is.
The thread is about whether TSLA is a good investment or not. That can change over time as macro environments change, competition changes, and the company itself changes. If you bought at the right time, TSLA certainly has been a good investment. That doesn't necessarily mean that it currently is. Tesla now is a much different company than it was 5+ years ago. They resemble a traditional carmaker more and more with each passing day of growth. If you bought a house at the right time in the last 10 years that's probably seen huge gains in value on paper as well. That doesn't mean that now is the right time to buy more homes, or for an outsider to buy in. The value of any asset at a given time is dependent on many factors.
If Elon's outside interests can have significant impacts on the share price and investor return, then the share price isn't based solely on business fundamentals. Basing decisions entirely on those fundamentals seems a bit myopic or dismissive of the outside risks unrelated to the company's performance at all. The stock has been boosted in the past by some amount of irrational support for Elon, and seems to be seeing some amount of erosion due to Elon's antics in recent months. We can argue about how much impact that emotion has had/is having but I think it's easy to see that it's played some role in the value of the stock, and is likely to continue. Not every investor is rational. There's a speculative nature about TSLA that is much higher than other individual stocks simply because the leader is so high profile, and the stock's value can change on the whims of Elon's twitter fingers or what he does in his other companies.
You conveniently left out the part where I said "Tesla's sales can be affected by the following: 2022 end year sales due to the upcoming IRA; Covid spread in China; high interest rates; possible recession; Elon+Twitter, but competition is not one of the factors." The main argument of the bears has been "the competition is coming". Tesla can have problems but it's not because of the competition, at least not for a long time.
Ok. We have many TSLA bulls in this thread that are adamant that because it's been a great investment, that it will continue to be a great investment. They often bring up business fundamentals as justification for the share price if people question their optimism, and then they pretty much handwave any impacts from investor sentiment as if that hasn't played a role thus far, and cannot in the future. It's fine to speculate on an individual stock, and for those who've taken the chance on TSLA, they've probably been rewarded pretty well. But TSLA seems to be more impacted by sentiment than most other individual stocks, so that should be a consideration for anybody holding the stock or anybody who reads this thread and may be considering new investment. I think it's key for anybody investing in an individual stock to have a clearly defined plan for divesting from that position, and all I ever really read in this thread is irrational exuberance about buying the dip, or holding for decades, or spending six figures to fully encase oneself in the entire Tesla ecosystem. It's obvious that many of the frequent TSLA supporters are not just financially invested, but also emotionally invested in the company and that seems potentially dangerous to me.
This thread has become a dichotomy of Bulls and Bears, and I don't see a bunch from either side that indicates an honest, moderate outlook without emotion. Tesla the company has come a tremendously long way in recent years. I've been proven wrong. The stock has exploded for a number of reasons. That doesn't mean that every idea they have is great, or that there are no valid criticisms of their products, or that past performance guarantees future results. Just because somebody has concern about an investment, or criticism for a company does not mean that they don't want to see it succeed. I very seriously doubt that most of the "bears" in this thread have any financial incentive influencing their comments in this thread. They're not actively rooting against Tesla, or TSLA shareholder's returns the way that "a short" might, but the responses from the "bulls" tend to imply that there's more ill will or malice than there actually is. I just don't want to see anybody get burned badly, and it seems like a few posters may be way out over their skis with their financial and emotional investment in TSLA.
For me personally - my next vehicle was always going to be a tesla. I've been planning on that for a while. That preceeded my foray into buying their stock. My reason for that wasn't because it was a luxury type vehicle. It wasn't just because it was an EV. It was because it was from an exclusively EV manufacturer deliberately trying to shift the narative on new cars and the environment. That is what gets my purchasing money. When I was first hearing about tesla, you know the narative is "can you afford to buy it?" and my narative is "can I afford NOT to buy it?" Thinking of the world, the future, climate issues, air pollution (one of my children has asthma.....we used to live near an expressway.....).
If you don't care about the luxury aspects, the Bolt has essentially the same range as the Model 3 standard edition, but at less than half the price ($26k vs $54k).
way to ignore almost everything I said about my rationale.
For me personally - my next vehicle was always going to be a tesla. I've been planning on that for a while. That preceeded my foray into buying their stock. My reason for that wasn't because it was a luxury type vehicle. It wasn't just because it was an EV. It was because it was from an exclusively EV manufacturer deliberately trying to shift the narative on new cars and the environment. That is what gets my purchasing money. When I was first hearing about tesla, you know the narative is "can you afford to buy it?" and my narative is "can I afford NOT to buy it?" Thinking of the world, the future, climate issues, air pollution (one of my children has asthma.....we used to live near an expressway.....).
And my financial projections on the tesla roof actually show it to be a wash, While it will be a bit pricey to do, it also lowers the amount of stache needed by a nearly equivalent amount. So almost like the roof - which was needed anyway! Came along for nearly nothing....
Just a projection of course. maybe it will work out more or less favorably on the finance side. On the environmental side, I think it's no contest.
For me personally - my next vehicle was always going to be a tesla. I've been planning on that for a while. That preceeded my foray into buying their stock. My reason for that wasn't because it was a luxury type vehicle. It wasn't just because it was an EV. It was because it was from an exclusively EV manufacturer deliberately trying to shift the narative on new cars and the environment. That is what gets my purchasing money. When I was first hearing about tesla, you know the narative is "can you afford to buy it?" and my narative is "can I afford NOT to buy it?" Thinking of the world, the future, climate issues, air pollution (one of my children has asthma.....we used to live near an expressway.....).
If you don't care about the luxury aspects, the Bolt has essentially the same range as the Model 3 standard edition, but at less than half the price ($26k vs $54k).
way to ignore almost everything I said about my rationale.
??? Tesla isn't the only one trying to shift the narrative on cars and the environment. GM (the maker of the Bolt) plans to sell only zero emissions vehicles by 2035 (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/28/business/gm-zero-emission-vehicles.html) and reach carbon neutrality by 2040. That's huge! GM is also installing 40,000 chargers (https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/07/business/gm-chargers/index.html) in rural areas which will go a long way in helping adoption of EVs outside of urban areas.
For me personally - my next vehicle was always going to be a tesla. I've been planning on that for a while. That preceeded my foray into buying their stock. My reason for that wasn't because it was a luxury type vehicle. It wasn't just because it was an EV. It was because it was from an exclusively EV manufacturer deliberately trying to shift the narative on new cars and the environment. That is what gets my purchasing money. When I was first hearing about tesla, you know the narative is "can you afford to buy it?" and my narative is "can I afford NOT to buy it?" Thinking of the world, the future, climate issues, air pollution (one of my children has asthma.....we used to live near an expressway.....).
And my financial projections on the tesla roof actually show it to be a wash, While it will be a bit pricey to do, it also lowers the amount of stache needed by a nearly equivalent amount. So almost like the roof - which was needed anyway! Came along for nearly nothing....
Just a projection of course. maybe it will work out more or less favorably on the finance side. On the environmental side, I think it's no contest.
If environmental impact is truly a consideration, I'd strongly advise that you put some thought (and a little math) into whether hoarding a whole bunch of KWH of LiIon battery capacity that's rarely used to it's full capacity is truly the best option moving forward.
All of that battery production has a significant environmental impact. This is accepted. The initial footprint can be overcome in an EV as miles are driven (the exact break even point depends on tons of factors), but the premise is that EVs have a larger production impact, and a smaller impact while they're consuming.
So, with that understanding, I think it's logical to assume that EV ownership will reduce your individual impact at some point. The more you drive (consume) the sooner that will occur. But if reducing your individual impact means that fewer people get to see the benefits, then it may not be the best path forward from a societal, planet wide perspective.
Lets say your Model 3 has ~80 kwh of battery capacity, and 350 miles of all-electric range. If you drive 15k miles per year, and previously had an ICE car, you replaced 15k miles of ICE driving with 15k miles of cleaner EV driving. This is good from an individual perspective! But the resources used for an 80kwh LiIon battery are pretty scarce these days. If we split that same amount of raw battery materials among multiple PHEVs (lets say 20 kwh each) that can get ~50 miles of electric range and then use the ICE. If those owners also drive 15k each per year, and say ~80% of those miles are driven in EV mode, then each one drives 12k miles in electric mode, and 3k under ICE power. So with the same amount of rare raw materials, you'd get 48k EV miles per year vs 15k EV miles in the single long-range EV. So your Model 3 is responsible for 300k EV miles of driving over 20 years (which is fine) instead of the same amount of resources going toward 4 PHEVs that could drive 960k EV miles in that same 20 year period. Now add a couple of Powerwalls @ 10kwh of resources per unit that can no longer be put to better use, and the difference in impact grows even more.
By sequestering all of these limited resources into applications that rarely use their full capacity, you may be improving your individual impact, while also hurting the chances for wider spread societal change. You're trying to clean up your consumption (which is admirable) rather than reducing it. We cannot consume our way toward a better, healthier planet. All of these BEVs, solar panels, battery backups, etc take a whole bunch of not-great effort to manufacture, and they only pay off with a bunch of use (consumption). At the very least, as a society we need to be using limited resources as efficiently as we can if we hope to have maximum impact in minimal time.
Ok. We have many TSLA bulls in this thread that are adamant that because it's been a great investment, that it will continue to be a great investment. They often bring up business fundamentals as justification for the share price if people question their optimism, and then they pretty much handwave any impacts from investor sentiment as if that hasn't played a role thus far, and cannot in the future. It's fine to speculate on an individual stock, and for those who've taken the chance on TSLA, they've probably been rewarded pretty well. But TSLA seems to be more impacted by sentiment than most other individual stocks, so that should be a consideration for anybody holding the stock or anybody who reads this thread and may be considering new investment. I think it's key for anybody investing in an individual stock to have a clearly defined plan for divesting from that position, and all I ever really read in this thread is irrational exuberance about buying the dip, or holding for decades, or spending six figures to fully encase oneself in the entire Tesla ecosystem. It's obvious that many of the frequent TSLA supporters are not just financially invested, but also emotionally invested in the company and that seems potentially dangerous to me.
This thread has become a dichotomy of Bulls and Bears, and I don't see a bunch from either side that indicates an honest, moderate outlook without emotion. Tesla the company has come a tremendously long way in recent years. I've been proven wrong. The stock has exploded for a number of reasons. That doesn't mean that every idea they have is great, or that there are no valid criticisms of their products, or that past performance guarantees future results. Just because somebody has concern about an investment, or criticism for a company does not mean that they don't want to see it succeed. I very seriously doubt that most of the "bears" in this thread have any financial incentive influencing their comments in this thread. They're not actively rooting against Tesla, or TSLA shareholder's returns the way that "a short" might, but the responses from the "bulls" tend to imply that there's more ill will or malice than there actually is. I just don't want to see anybody get burned badly, and it seems like a few posters may be way out over their skis with their financial and emotional investment in TSLA.
People put their money where they want to put their money. Investment, purchases, etc.
It's actually kind of gross to me for you to imply that your posting here is something akin to a public service because you don't want to "see anybody get burned badly". Eveyone can decide for themselves what they are going to do.
Putin could go crazy and launch nukes tomorrow and the great depression becomes an idylic memory of a lovely time......and we'd all have to live through it....if we were lucky.
I just don't buy being concerned about someone else choices as a valid posting impetus. Unless someone is actively asking for advice.
Which, coincidentally, I did invite commentary on the numbers from tdameritrade I posted, and almost nobody picked it up.
So, to be a bit real here, Tesla's stock is way down. But there is downward pressure on all stocks, indexes down 20% YTD, with Nasdaq down 33% - so that needs to be factored in. Telsa value shot up way too far/fast last half of 2021 so something of a pullback only made sense, even if the market as a whole did not. Now there is additional downward pressure due to Musk antics on twitter, and perhaps the perception he is doing nothing to lead tesla at all at the moment.
To me, this is a buying opportunity and I am buying. While I have a lot of confidence in Tesla and their products, I do worry about Musk's social influence. Could his 180 in politics and affiliations bring in new Tesla customers? I'm not convinced! They don't even beleive in climate change or harmful health effects of air pollution! But it is possible, I suppose.....Does he have a strategy here? Is this deliberate? Is he as unhinged as he seems to me? I really don't know, and neither does anyone else, I'm sure! Sometimes, I think he's having a mental health crisis to be honest.....
But the company I feel is solid, last 7 quarters of EPS have been positive surprises from analyst predictions.......and I for one am happy that the stock has experienced a lot of downward pressure on the price right now.....giving an opportunity to stock up a little bit, and to feel more confident it isn't over priced.
I'm also stocking up heavily on indexes in 401k, and will start with ibonds in January again...so, I don't get what the big deal is at all. Some of us think Tesla will do very well going forward, others don't.
But there is no argument to be 'won' here. 3-5 years out tesla perfomance will be the determinate.
May be you are obsessed with Tesla little too much?
Sounds like you invested between 70K - 100K in tesla stock and may be lost half of that so far and continue to buy more.
And bought a compact Tesla car for 50-60K, that does same function that a 15K car does.
Unless you have millions dollars in investments that is too much in one stock.
Tesla is big daddy of meme stocks. Its success so far is due to people not selling it no matter what. I think that brand has been damaged for good by EM, long term it is not a safe bet.
Be careful not catching falling knife. Be aware of sunk-cost fallacy.
Always good advice, I will think hard on it. Have been, honestly!! I am only putting small amounts of new money into tesla, after 401k into stock indexes and most of my taxable going towards bonds.
If tesla was just a car company, I'd be a bit less optimistic on their future growth in the near term. Overall, new car sales are expected to softed as/if the expected recession continues.
Now, how gas prices may change and how that effects the EV market I think is less clear. Could be a push that way if gas gets very expensive. For automotive sales, then there is the cybertruck orders that are on a 3 year wait to fill existing reservations. Some may cancel, too true! but that will be seen over time......
One thing I read that was not discussed here (at least I didn't see it!) is that if the new car market softens considerable, that the legacy automakers could pivot away from EVs as they are currently not making money on them and focus on the ICE cars they do make money. It's an interesting suggestion, and I can't recall where I may have read that.
But I think the energy side of the business has enormous upside, but how that might be influenced.....positive or negative....by a recession, or prolonged recession, I can't predict.
For me personally - my next vehicle was always going to be a tesla. I've been planning on that for a while. That preceeded my foray into buying their stock. My reason for that wasn't because it was a luxury type vehicle. It wasn't just because it was an EV. It was because it was from an exclusively EV manufacturer deliberately trying to shift the narative on new cars and the environment. That is what gets my purchasing money. When I was first hearing about tesla, you know the narative is "can you afford to buy it?" and my narative is "can I afford NOT to buy it?" Thinking of the world, the future, climate issues, air pollution (one of my children has asthma.....we used to live near an expressway.....).
Adding in an additional FU to the haggling dealership model that I've had all bad experiences with, was just icing on the cake. Trying to get a car at a dealership as a young single woman 20 years ago was one of the worse, most manipulative feeling experiences of my life. Anything I can do put a bullet in the model is sweet music to my ears.
Similarly my next roof will be tesla, again my question is can I afford NOT to buy it? Given the world........and I've always hated the look of solar panel on a roof and didn't think there would be any alternative. Then I saw this! Was so thrilled for it! It was definitely going to be my next roof! I will get powerwalls for energy security. I will get as close to self sufficient in energy as I can, my perspective is that anyone who could possible go that route must for everyone's future. And tesla seems to me to be the best way to do that.
So my consumerism came first, and then I bought the stock because I see this as really being what the future needs. Was it over valued, sure, maybe? Will it bounce back tomorrow? Probably not.
But I think 3 years from now these shares will be well worth the volatity of now. And if not - I'll have sufficient funds in the indexes for myself.
I may have to work an extra year if they don't bounce back! But I was probably going to have to work an extra year anyway......so.....kind of not a change to my mind.
But back to my new car!!! Word on the street is expected lifespan is about 300k miles, so this will do me for quite some time. Get the tesla roof and powerwalls and my car will be powered from my resources.....soooo looking forward to that!
And my financial projections on the tesla roof actually show it to be a wash, While it will be a bit pricey to do, it also lowers the amount of stache needed by a nearly equivalent amount. So almost like the roof - which was needed anyway! Came along for nearly nothing....
Just a projection of course. maybe it will work out more or less favorably on the finance side. On the environmental side, I think it's no contest.
Ok. We have many TSLA bulls in this thread that are adamant that because it's been a great investment, that it will continue to be a great investment. They often bring up business fundamentals as justification for the share price if people question their optimism, and then they pretty much handwave any impacts from investor sentiment as if that hasn't played a role thus far, and cannot in the future. It's fine to speculate on an individual stock, and for those who've taken the chance on TSLA, they've probably been rewarded pretty well. But TSLA seems to be more impacted by sentiment than most other individual stocks, so that should be a consideration for anybody holding the stock or anybody who reads this thread and may be considering new investment. I think it's key for anybody investing in an individual stock to have a clearly defined plan for divesting from that position, and all I ever really read in this thread is irrational exuberance about buying the dip, or holding for decades, or spending six figures to fully encase oneself in the entire Tesla ecosystem. It's obvious that many of the frequent TSLA supporters are not just financially invested, but also emotionally invested in the company and that seems potentially dangerous to me.
This thread has become a dichotomy of Bulls and Bears, and I don't see a bunch from either side that indicates an honest, moderate outlook without emotion. Tesla the company has come a tremendously long way in recent years. I've been proven wrong. The stock has exploded for a number of reasons. That doesn't mean that every idea they have is great, or that there are no valid criticisms of their products, or that past performance guarantees future results. Just because somebody has concern about an investment, or criticism for a company does not mean that they don't want to see it succeed. I very seriously doubt that most of the "bears" in this thread have any financial incentive influencing their comments in this thread. They're not actively rooting against Tesla, or TSLA shareholder's returns the way that "a short" might, but the responses from the "bulls" tend to imply that there's more ill will or malice than there actually is. I just don't want to see anybody get burned badly, and it seems like a few posters may be way out over their skis with their financial and emotional investment in TSLA.
People put their money where they want to put their money. Investment, purchases, etc.
It's actually kind of gross to me for you to imply that your posting here is something akin to a public service because you don't want to "see anybody get burned badly". Eveyone can decide for themselves what they are going to do.
Putin could go crazy and launch nukes tomorrow and the great depression becomes an idylic memory of a lovely time......and we'd all have to live through it....if we were lucky.
I just don't buy being concerned about someone else choices as a valid posting impetus. Unless someone is actively asking for advice.
Which, coincidentally, I did invite commentary on the numbers from tdameritrade I posted, and almost nobody picked it up.
Ok, so then what do you consider to be an acceptable motivation for a person to question or criticize TSLA as an investment?
Is any criticism of the company or the stock's relative value at a given time acceptable?
It's not as if I'm the only one suggesting that you and others may be too invested in this company. Why would multiple people on the internet say anything at all about it unless their motivation were similar? We could just keep our thoughts to ourselves but then this place becomes an echo chamber of cheerleading instead of a place for thoughtful, respectful discussion. As a society I think we've already gone far enough in that direction.
If a respectful but dissenting opinion isn't welcome here, then you can have the floor. I'll leave the cheerleaders to do what they do. Hopefully your TSLA holdings work out for you, but the stock picking and greenwashed consumption traits that are frequently exhibited in this thread are kind of counter to a lot of core MMM principals in my opinion. I'll leave the thread with some final thoughts for the collective:
Reduce your consumption, rather than just trying to clean it up. Fix your old stuff and use the hell out of it instead of replacing it. Do your best to be rational and logical about choices rather than emotional, or at the very least be aware of the ways that your sub-optimal choices impact yourself and others so that you may be as informed as possible. Enjoy your thread everyone.
So, to be a bit real here, Tesla's stock is way down. But there is downward pressure on all stocks, indexes down 20% YTD, with Nasdaq down 33% - so that needs to be factored in. Telsa value shot up way too far/fast last half of 2021 so something of a pullback only made sense, even if the market as a whole did not. Now there is additional downward pressure due to Musk antics on twitter, and perhaps the perception he is doing nothing to lead tesla at all at the moment.
To me, this is a buying opportunity and I am buying. While I have a lot of confidence in Tesla and their products, I do worry about Musk's social influence. Could his 180 in politics and affiliations bring in new Tesla customers? I'm not convinced! They don't even beleive in climate change or harmful health effects of air pollution! But it is possible, I suppose.....Does he have a strategy here? Is this deliberate? Is he as unhinged as he seems to me? I really don't know, and neither does anyone else, I'm sure! Sometimes, I think he's having a mental health crisis to be honest.....
But the company I feel is solid, last 7 quarters of EPS have been positive surprises from analyst predictions.......and I for one am happy that the stock has experienced a lot of downward pressure on the price right now.....giving an opportunity to stock up a little bit, and to feel more confident it isn't over priced.
I'm also stocking up heavily on indexes in 401k, and will start with ibonds in January again...so, I don't get what the big deal is at all. Some of us think Tesla will do very well going forward, others don't.
But there is no argument to be 'won' here. 3-5 years out tesla perfomance will be the determinate.
May be you are obsessed with Tesla little too much?
Sounds like you invested between 70K - 100K in tesla stock and may be lost half of that so far and continue to buy more.
And bought a compact Tesla car for 50-60K, that does same function that a 15K car does.
Unless you have millions dollars in investments that is too much in one stock.
Tesla is big daddy of meme stocks. Its success so far is due to people not selling it no matter what. I think that brand has been damaged for good by EM, long term it is not a safe bet.
Be careful not catching falling knife. Be aware of sunk-cost fallacy.
Always good advice, I will think hard on it. Have been, honestly!! I am only putting small amounts of new money into tesla, after 401k into stock indexes and most of my taxable going towards bonds.
If tesla was just a car company, I'd be a bit less optimistic on their future growth in the near term. Overall, new car sales are expected to softed as/if the expected recession continues.
Now, how gas prices may change and how that effects the EV market I think is less clear. Could be a push that way if gas gets very expensive. For automotive sales, then there is the cybertruck orders that are on a 3 year wait to fill existing reservations. Some may cancel, too true! but that will be seen over time......
One thing I read that was not discussed here (at least I didn't see it!) is that if the new car market softens considerable, that the legacy automakers could pivot away from EVs as they are currently not making money on them and focus on the ICE cars they do make money. It's an interesting suggestion, and I can't recall where I may have read that.
But I think the energy side of the business has enormous upside, but how that might be influenced.....positive or negative....by a recession, or prolonged recession, I can't predict.
For me personally - my next vehicle was always going to be a tesla. I've been planning on that for a while. That preceeded my foray into buying their stock. My reason for that wasn't because it was a luxury type vehicle. It wasn't just because it was an EV. It was because it was from an exclusively EV manufacturer deliberately trying to shift the narative on new cars and the environment. That is what gets my purchasing money. When I was first hearing about tesla, you know the narative is "can you afford to buy it?" and my narative is "can I afford NOT to buy it?" Thinking of the world, the future, climate issues, air pollution (one of my children has asthma.....we used to live near an expressway.....).
Adding in an additional FU to the haggling dealership model that I've had all bad experiences with, was just icing on the cake. Trying to get a car at a dealership as a young single woman 20 years ago was one of the worse, most manipulative feeling experiences of my life. Anything I can do put a bullet in the model is sweet music to my ears.
Similarly my next roof will be tesla, again my question is can I afford NOT to buy it? Given the world........and I've always hated the look of solar panel on a roof and didn't think there would be any alternative. Then I saw this! Was so thrilled for it! It was definitely going to be my next roof! I will get powerwalls for energy security. I will get as close to self sufficient in energy as I can, my perspective is that anyone who could possible go that route must for everyone's future. And tesla seems to me to be the best way to do that.
So my consumerism came first, and then I bought the stock because I see this as really being what the future needs. Was it over valued, sure, maybe? Will it bounce back tomorrow? Probably not.
But I think 3 years from now these shares will be well worth the volatity of now. And if not - I'll have sufficient funds in the indexes for myself.
I may have to work an extra year if they don't bounce back! But I was probably going to have to work an extra year anyway......so.....kind of not a change to my mind.
But back to my new car!!! Word on the street is expected lifespan is about 300k miles, so this will do me for quite some time. Get the tesla roof and powerwalls and my car will be powered from my resources.....soooo looking forward to that!
And my financial projections on the tesla roof actually show it to be a wash, While it will be a bit pricey to do, it also lowers the amount of stache needed by a nearly equivalent amount. So almost like the roof - which was needed anyway! Came along for nearly nothing....
Just a projection of course. maybe it will work out more or less favorably on the finance side. On the environmental side, I think it's no contest.
Sorry, it seems worse than I thought. So you are planning to spend another 100 grand on tesla products.
Tesla doesn't need your dollars to survive, they have raised over 20 billion dollars in equity.
Nope I don't think that.Sorry, it seems worse than I thought. So you are planning to spend another 100 grand on tesla products.
Tesla doesn't need your dollars to survive, they have raised over 20 billion dollars in equity.
oh dear. did you think I wasn't allowed to buy what I want with my own money?
Ok. We have many TSLA bulls in this thread that are adamant that because it's been a great investment, that it will continue to be a great investment. They often bring up business fundamentals as justification for the share price if people question their optimism, and then they pretty much handwave any impacts from investor sentiment as if that hasn't played a role thus far, and cannot in the future. It's fine to speculate on an individual stock, and for those who've taken the chance on TSLA, they've probably been rewarded pretty well. But TSLA seems to be more impacted by sentiment than most other individual stocks, so that should be a consideration for anybody holding the stock or anybody who reads this thread and may be considering new investment. I think it's key for anybody investing in an individual stock to have a clearly defined plan for divesting from that position, and all I ever really read in this thread is irrational exuberance about buying the dip, or holding for decades, or spending six figures to fully encase oneself in the entire Tesla ecosystem. It's obvious that many of the frequent TSLA supporters are not just financially invested, but also emotionally invested in the company and that seems potentially dangerous to me.
This thread has become a dichotomy of Bulls and Bears, and I don't see a bunch from either side that indicates an honest, moderate outlook without emotion. Tesla the company has come a tremendously long way in recent years. I've been proven wrong. The stock has exploded for a number of reasons. That doesn't mean that every idea they have is great, or that there are no valid criticisms of their products, or that past performance guarantees future results. Just because somebody has concern about an investment, or criticism for a company does not mean that they don't want to see it succeed. I very seriously doubt that most of the "bears" in this thread have any financial incentive influencing their comments in this thread. They're not actively rooting against Tesla, or TSLA shareholder's returns the way that "a short" might, but the responses from the "bulls" tend to imply that there's more ill will or malice than there actually is. I just don't want to see anybody get burned badly, and it seems like a few posters may be way out over their skis with their financial and emotional investment in TSLA.
People put their money where they want to put their money. Investment, purchases, etc.
It's actually kind of gross to me for you to imply that your posting here is something akin to a public service because you don't want to "see anybody get burned badly". Eveyone can decide for themselves what they are going to do.
Putin could go crazy and launch nukes tomorrow and the great depression becomes an idylic memory of a lovely time......and we'd all have to live through it....if we were lucky.
I just don't buy being concerned about someone else choices as a valid posting impetus. Unless someone is actively asking for advice.
Which, coincidentally, I did invite commentary on the numbers from tdameritrade I posted, and almost nobody picked it up.
Ok, so then what do you consider to be an acceptable motivation for a person to question or criticize TSLA as an investment?
Is any criticism of the company or the stock's relative value at a given time acceptable?
It's not as if I'm the only one suggesting that you and others may be too invested in this company. Why would multiple people on the internet say anything at all about it unless their motivation were similar? We could just keep our thoughts to ourselves but then this place becomes an echo chamber of cheerleading instead of a place for thoughtful, respectful discussion. As a society I think we've already gone far enough in that direction.
If a respectful but dissenting opinion isn't welcome here, then you can have the floor. I'll leave the cheerleaders to do what they do. Hopefully your TSLA holdings work out for you, but the stock picking and greenwashed consumption traits that are frequently exhibited in this thread are kind of counter to a lot of core MMM principals in my opinion. I'll leave the thread with some final thoughts for the collective:
Reduce your consumption, rather than just trying to clean it up. Fix your old stuff and use the hell out of it instead of replacing it. Do your best to be rational and logical about choices rather than emotional, or at the very least be aware of the ways that your sub-optimal choices impact yourself and others so that you may be as informed as possible. Enjoy your thread everyone.
Criticize away! Elon is a pig and could bring the whole thing to ruin alienating the entire customer base just being a jerk. Cities across the globe may follow Paris and eliminate nearly all vehicular traffic, pump up public transport, and make urban vehicles a thing of the past. Maybe there is an Enron situation happening at tesla? Someone could scoop the whole autotaxi thing and tesla just twists in the wind for airing their good ideas and not bringing to market before someone else. Anything could happen! Unfortunately, putin and bombs are a little more likely than some of these.....
But there is a difference between posting criticism of the company, and saying you are trying to save people from their own decisions. Do you understand that difference?
If there is anyone here that would appreciate that, let them step forward and claim it. For myself, it is unwelcome. That has nothing to do with criticism of tesla. I'm not here for someone to "save me from burning". I enjoy the discussion, I like the disparate POVs - but I make my decisions and sorry if that actually offends some people! you do you! But I must do me.
If the money I invested in tesla burns, I will deal with that. If the car burn, I'm going to go after them for recompense! If the planet burns, then I will point the finger at more wasteful consumers than myself, for sure. :P
Nope I don't think that.Sorry, it seems worse than I thought. So you are planning to spend another 100 grand on tesla products.
Tesla doesn't need your dollars to survive, they have raised over 20 billion dollars in equity.
oh dear. did you think I wasn't allowed to buy what I want with my own money?
It is not surprising. But very interesting how people can be suckered into spending big chunks of life savings on things that relatively change your life very little.
Ok. We have many TSLA bulls in this thread that are adamant that because it's been a great investment, that it will continue to be a great investment. They often bring up business fundamentals as justification for the share price if people question their optimism, and then they pretty much handwave any impacts from investor sentiment as if that hasn't played a role thus far, and cannot in the future. It's fine to speculate on an individual stock, and for those who've taken the chance on TSLA, they've probably been rewarded pretty well. But TSLA seems to be more impacted by sentiment than most other individual stocks, so that should be a consideration for anybody holding the stock or anybody who reads this thread and may be considering new investment. I think it's key for anybody investing in an individual stock to have a clearly defined plan for divesting from that position, and all I ever really read in this thread is irrational exuberance about buying the dip, or holding for decades, or spending six figures to fully encase oneself in the entire Tesla ecosystem. It's obvious that many of the frequent TSLA supporters are not just financially invested, but also emotionally invested in the company and that seems potentially dangerous to me.
This thread has become a dichotomy of Bulls and Bears, and I don't see a bunch from either side that indicates an honest, moderate outlook without emotion. Tesla the company has come a tremendously long way in recent years. I've been proven wrong. The stock has exploded for a number of reasons. That doesn't mean that every idea they have is great, or that there are no valid criticisms of their products, or that past performance guarantees future results. Just because somebody has concern about an investment, or criticism for a company does not mean that they don't want to see it succeed. I very seriously doubt that most of the "bears" in this thread have any financial incentive influencing their comments in this thread. They're not actively rooting against Tesla, or TSLA shareholder's returns the way that "a short" might, but the responses from the "bulls" tend to imply that there's more ill will or malice than there actually is. I just don't want to see anybody get burned badly, and it seems like a few posters may be way out over their skis with their financial and emotional investment in TSLA.
People put their money where they want to put their money. Investment, purchases, etc.
It's actually kind of gross to me for you to imply that your posting here is something akin to a public service because you don't want to "see anybody get burned badly". Eveyone can decide for themselves what they are going to do.
Putin could go crazy and launch nukes tomorrow and the great depression becomes an idylic memory of a lovely time......and we'd all have to live through it....if we were lucky.
I just don't buy being concerned about someone else choices as a valid posting impetus. Unless someone is actively asking for advice.
Which, coincidentally, I did invite commentary on the numbers from tdameritrade I posted, and almost nobody picked it up.
Ok, so then what do you consider to be an acceptable motivation for a person to question or criticize TSLA as an investment?
Is any criticism of the company or the stock's relative value at a given time acceptable?
It's not as if I'm the only one suggesting that you and others may be too invested in this company. Why would multiple people on the internet say anything at all about it unless their motivation were similar? We could just keep our thoughts to ourselves but then this place becomes an echo chamber of cheerleading instead of a place for thoughtful, respectful discussion. As a society I think we've already gone far enough in that direction.
If a respectful but dissenting opinion isn't welcome here, then you can have the floor. I'll leave the cheerleaders to do what they do. Hopefully your TSLA holdings work out for you, but the stock picking and greenwashed consumption traits that are frequently exhibited in this thread are kind of counter to a lot of core MMM principals in my opinion. I'll leave the thread with some final thoughts for the collective:
Reduce your consumption, rather than just trying to clean it up. Fix your old stuff and use the hell out of it instead of replacing it. Do your best to be rational and logical about choices rather than emotional, or at the very least be aware of the ways that your sub-optimal choices impact yourself and others so that you may be as informed as possible. Enjoy your thread everyone.
Criticize away! Elon is a pig and could bring the whole thing to ruin alienating the entire customer base just being a jerk. Cities across the globe may follow Paris and eliminate nearly all vehicular traffic, pump up public transport, and make urban vehicles a thing of the past. Maybe there is an Enron situation happening at tesla? Someone could scoop the whole autotaxi thing and tesla just twists in the wind for airing their good ideas and not bringing to market before someone else. Anything could happen! Unfortunately, putin and bombs are a little more likely than some of these.....
But there is a difference between posting criticism of the company, and saying you are trying to save people from their own decisions. Do you understand that difference?
If there is anyone here that would appreciate that, let them step forward and claim it. For myself, it is unwelcome. That has nothing to do with criticism of tesla. I'm not here for someone to "save me from burning". I enjoy the discussion, I like the disparate POVs - but I make my decisions and sorry if that actually offends some people! you do you! But I must do me.
If the money I invested in tesla burns, I will deal with that. If the car burn, I'm going to go after them for recompense! If the planet burns, then I will point the finger at more wasteful consumers than myself, for sure. :P
I think you took some leaps to draw those conclusions based on my post. The fact that you took my post so personally should tell you everything you need to know about the amount of emotional investment that you have involved here. Best of luck with the investments.
Nope I don't think that.Sorry, it seems worse than I thought. So you are planning to spend another 100 grand on tesla products.
Tesla doesn't need your dollars to survive, they have raised over 20 billion dollars in equity.
oh dear. did you think I wasn't allowed to buy what I want with my own money?
It is not surprising. But very interesting how people can be suckered into spending big chunks of life savings on things that relatively change your life very little.
I don't know if you think this supposedly subtle insulting of my choices is really all that subtle, or if you are intentionally being so because you don't have a real argument. My intention to get solar on my roof has been a goal for over 20 years, but I'd never been in the financial position to do it. Tesla has the look I prefer. If I didn't go with tesla, I'd be buying a new roof anyway, and solar panels, and backup storage from 2-3 different vendors. Tesla offers a much smoother and integrated process. It's a relief to find it so integrated, actually.
Do you think tesla has no real customers, or what? Do you think they came out with products no one was looking for and foisted it on them all? With their very clever lack of a marketing campaign? I was a tesla customer before tesla even existed, a decade even long before they ever started. I wasn't suckered into something - I found what I was looking for, and that wasn't available for many years.
So I think this is the third or so time I've explained this in this thread. I've put it out as helpful information for those who would never be tesla customers and maybe didn't understand a tesla customer. Again - just because you prefer pepsi and think the upcharge for coke is ridiculous and for "suckers", doesn't mean that the taste differential isn't worth it to those who prefer coke.
Speaking of soda - now that is for suckers - a completely made up 'necessity' that most households spend a fortune on with nothing to show, except maybe some dental or health detriments.
In the grand scheme of things, spending 50k on a car is nothing. If it take me to 300k miles, will have been well worth it. Today, the heated seats and heated steering wheel were well worth the price! I didn't the little luxuries.....but I am enjoying them!
In my math, getting a tesla roof is financially neutral over the long haul. If you have other counters to that, that would be interesting. But just calling me a sucker for buying something I've been wanting for a few decades is not really very compelling.
For me personally - my next vehicle was always going to be a tesla. I've been planning on that for a while. That preceeded my foray into buying their stock. My reason for that wasn't because it was a luxury type vehicle. It wasn't just because it was an EV. It was because it was from an exclusively EV manufacturer deliberately trying to shift the narative on new cars and the environment. That is what gets my purchasing money. When I was first hearing about tesla, you know the narative is "can you afford to buy it?" and my narative is "can I afford NOT to buy it?" Thinking of the world, the future, climate issues, air pollution (one of my children has asthma.....we used to live near an expressway.....).
Adding in an additional FU to the haggling dealership model that I've had all bad experiences with, was just icing on the cake. Trying to get a car at a dealership as a young single woman 20 years ago was one of the worse, most manipulative feeling experiences of my life. Anything I can do put a bullet in the model is sweet music to my ears.
Similarly my next roof will be tesla, again my question is can I afford NOT to buy it? Given the world........and I've always hated the look of solar panel on a roof and didn't think there would be any alternative. Then I saw this! Was so thrilled for it! It was definitely going to be my next roof! I will get powerwalls for energy security. I will get as close to self sufficient in energy as I can, my perspective is that anyone who could possible go that route must for everyone's future. And tesla seems to me to be the best way to do that.
So my consumerism came first, and then I bought the stock because I see this as really being what the future needs. Was it over valued, sure, maybe? Will it bounce back tomorrow? Probably not.
But I think 3 years from now these shares will be well worth the volatity of now. And if not - I'll have sufficient funds in the indexes for myself.
But back to my new car!!! Word on the street is expected lifespan is about 300k miles, so this will do me for quite some time. Get the tesla roof and powerwalls and my car will be powered from my resources.....soooo looking forward to that!
And my financial projections on the tesla roof actually show it to be a wash, While it will be a bit pricey to do, it also lowers the amount of stache needed by a nearly equivalent amount. So almost like the roof - which was needed anyway! Came along for nearly nothing....
Nope I don't think that.Sorry, it seems worse than I thought. So you are planning to spend another 100 grand on tesla products.
Tesla doesn't need your dollars to survive, they have raised over 20 billion dollars in equity.
oh dear. did you think I wasn't allowed to buy what I want with my own money?
It is not surprising. But very interesting how people can be suckered into spending big chunks of life savings on things that relatively change your life very little.
I don't know if you think this supposedly subtle insulting of my choices is really all that subtle, or if you are intentionally being so because you don't have a real argument. My intention to get solar on my roof has been a goal for over 20 years, but I'd never been in the financial position to do it. Tesla has the look I prefer. If I didn't go with tesla, I'd be buying a new roof anyway, and solar panels, and backup storage from 2-3 different vendors. Tesla offers a much smoother and integrated process. It's a relief to find it so integrated, actually.
Do you think tesla has no real customers, or what? Do you think they came out with products no one was looking for and foisted it on them all? With their very clever lack of a marketing campaign? I was a tesla customer before tesla even existed, a decade even long before they ever started. I wasn't suckered into something - I found what I was looking for, and that wasn't available for many years.
So I think this is the third or so time I've explained this in this thread. I've put it out as helpful information for those who would never be tesla customers and maybe didn't understand a tesla customer. Again - just because you prefer pepsi and think the upcharge for coke is ridiculous and for "suckers", doesn't mean that the taste differential isn't worth it to those who prefer coke.
Speaking of soda - now that is for suckers - a completely made up 'necessity' that most households spend a fortune on with nothing to show, except maybe some dental or health detriments.
In the grand scheme of things, spending 50k on a car is nothing. If it take me to 300k miles, will have been well worth it. Today, the heated seats and heated steering wheel were well worth the price! I didn't the little luxuries.....but I am enjoying them!
In my math, getting a tesla roof is financially neutral over the long haul. If you have other counters to that, that would be interesting. But just calling me a sucker for buying something I've been wanting for a few decades is not really very compelling.
I meant no disrespect to you. I don't know your financial situation, but I think financial and spending choices seem to be risky and not very efficient.
But of course, you do you.
For me personally - my next vehicle was always going to be a tesla. I've been planning on that for a while. That preceeded my foray into buying their stock. My reason for that wasn't because it was a luxury type vehicle. It wasn't just because it was an EV. It was because it was from an exclusively EV manufacturer deliberately trying to shift the narative on new cars and the environment. That is what gets my purchasing money. When I was first hearing about tesla, you know the narative is "can you afford to buy it?" and my narative is "can I afford NOT to buy it?" Thinking of the world, the future, climate issues, air pollution (one of my children has asthma.....we used to live near an expressway.....).
Adding in an additional FU to the haggling dealership model that I've had all bad experiences with, was just icing on the cake. Trying to get a car at a dealership as a young single woman 20 years ago was one of the worse, most manipulative feeling experiences of my life. Anything I can do put a bullet in the model is sweet music to my ears.
Similarly my next roof will be tesla, again my question is can I afford NOT to buy it? Given the world........and I've always hated the look of solar panel on a roof and didn't think there would be any alternative. Then I saw this! Was so thrilled for it! It was definitely going to be my next roof! I will get powerwalls for energy security. I will get as close to self sufficient in energy as I can, my perspective is that anyone who could possible go that route must for everyone's future. And tesla seems to me to be the best way to do that.
So my consumerism came first, and then I bought the stock because I see this as really being what the future needs. Was it over valued, sure, maybe? Will it bounce back tomorrow? Probably not.
But I think 3 years from now these shares will be well worth the volatity of now. And if not - I'll have sufficient funds in the indexes for myself.
But back to my new car!!! Word on the street is expected lifespan is about 300k miles, so this will do me for quite some time. Get the tesla roof and powerwalls and my car will be powered from my resources.....soooo looking forward to that!
And my financial projections on the tesla roof actually show it to be a wash, While it will be a bit pricey to do, it also lowers the amount of stache needed by a nearly equivalent amount. So almost like the roof - which was needed anyway! Came along for nearly nothing....
This just reads like parody to me, especially in light of MMM. I just don't relate to any of it (except the dealership model comment, although I've only tried it once and ended up walking out to go buy a car on craigslist because that was way less sketchy)
Regarding the Tesla roof - I'd be interested in seeing how it is a wash. Unless you have a very simple roof plan, it can get very expensive quickly. The estimate given on the website is notoriously low.
I'd also look at GAF and Luma solar shingles for alternatives. I didn't care much about looks so didn't research any of them extensively, but know they are on the market also.
I'm sorry, but this seems like a major stretch and a true "think of the children!" level of pearl clutching. "So many batteries! I'm so concerned about battery hoarding!"
If environmental impact is truly a consideration, I'd strongly advise that you put some thought (and a little math) into whether hoarding a whole bunch of KWH of LiIon battery capacity that's rarely used to it's full capacity is truly the best option moving forward.
For me personally - my next vehicle was always going to be a tesla. I've been planning on that for a while. That preceeded my foray into buying their stock. My reason for that wasn't because it was a luxury type vehicle. It wasn't just because it was an EV. It was because it was from an exclusively EV manufacturer deliberately trying to shift the narative on new cars and the environment. That is what gets my purchasing money. When I was first hearing about tesla, you know the narative is "can you afford to buy it?" and my narative is "can I afford NOT to buy it?" Thinking of the world, the future, climate issues, air pollution (one of my children has asthma.....we used to live near an expressway.....).
Adding in an additional FU to the haggling dealership model that I've had all bad experiences with, was just icing on the cake. Trying to get a car at a dealership as a young single woman 20 years ago was one of the worse, most manipulative feeling experiences of my life. Anything I can do put a bullet in the model is sweet music to my ears.
Similarly my next roof will be tesla, again my question is can I afford NOT to buy it? Given the world........and I've always hated the look of solar panel on a roof and didn't think there would be any alternative. Then I saw this! Was so thrilled for it! It was definitely going to be my next roof! I will get powerwalls for energy security. I will get as close to self sufficient in energy as I can, my perspective is that anyone who could possible go that route must for everyone's future. And tesla seems to me to be the best way to do that.
So my consumerism came first, and then I bought the stock because I see this as really being what the future needs. Was it over valued, sure, maybe? Will it bounce back tomorrow? Probably not.
But I think 3 years from now these shares will be well worth the volatity of now. And if not - I'll have sufficient funds in the indexes for myself.
But back to my new car!!! Word on the street is expected lifespan is about 300k miles, so this will do me for quite some time. Get the tesla roof and powerwalls and my car will be powered from my resources.....soooo looking forward to that!
And my financial projections on the tesla roof actually show it to be a wash, While it will be a bit pricey to do, it also lowers the amount of stache needed by a nearly equivalent amount. So almost like the roof - which was needed anyway! Came along for nearly nothing....
This just reads like parody to me, especially in light of MMM. I just don't relate to any of it (except the dealership model comment, although I've only tried it once and ended up walking out to go buy a car on craigslist because that was way less sketchy)
how so? are you reacting to the use of the word consumerism specifically?
Checking the definition to see if I used it correctly, and it has several definitions, and even some nuances within those definitions......some of which are weightier than others. So perhaps it was a poor word choice there. I was speaking of myself as a consumer, a customer, a buyer, nosomuch as a philosophy of high consumption as a mandate or anything. But I would hope one would read a little more detailed before calling it a parody. Buying a roof is a once every 20-30 years purchase, and a car every 10-20 (at least herearound!), So I don't think that discussing these two very low volume purchases would necessarily bring to mind those negative connotations, particularly as I mentioned wanting some of them for decades, and planning for them for years.
On a side note: You can't walk out of a dealership when they have the keys to your current car and won't give it back.
I'm sorry, but this seems like a major stretch and a true "think of the children!" level of pearl clutching. "So many batteries! I'm so concerned about battery hoarding!"
If environmental impact is truly a consideration, I'd strongly advise that you put some thought (and a little math) into whether hoarding a whole bunch of KWH of LiIon battery capacity that's rarely used to it's full capacity is truly the best option moving forward.
@mistymoney , which was your M3 configuration? I'm looking at the LR AWD in red with 19" wheels. Share your thoughts so far if you'd like. Our first EV was a 2022 Kia Niro and we love having an EV.
@mistymoney , which was your M3 configuration? I'm looking at the LR AWD in red with 19" wheels. Share your thoughts so far if you'd like. Our first EV was a 2022 Kia Niro and we love having an EV.
I'm sorry, but this seems like a major stretch and a true "think of the children!" level of pearl clutching. "So many batteries! I'm so concerned about battery hoarding!"
If environmental impact is truly a consideration, I'd strongly advise that you put some thought (and a little math) into whether hoarding a whole bunch of KWH of LiIon battery capacity that's rarely used to it's full capacity is truly the best option moving forward.
large dip on tesla stock price today.....at about 125 share price, I put the PE at slightly under 34 right now, with a peg of .75.
Based on the past 4 quarters, and the previous 4 quarters for the percent growth (which I got at 45%). Would love if someone would check and see if I calcualted this right! I used the EPS per quarter info out of tdamertrade, as I can see they do not update these numbers that often!
This just reads like parody to me, especially in light of MMM. I just don't relate to any of it (except the dealership model comment, although I've only tried it once and ended up walking out to go buy a car on craigslist because that was way less sketchy)
how so? are you reacting to the use of the word consumerism specifically?
Checking the definition to see if I used it correctly, and it has several definitions, and even some nuances within those definitions......some of which are weightier than others. So perhaps it was a poor word choice there. I was speaking of myself as a consumer, a customer, a buyer, nosomuch as a philosophy of high consumption as a mandate or anything. But I would hope one would read a little more detailed before calling it a parody. Buying a roof is a once every 20-30 years purchase, and a car every 10-20 (at least herearound!), So I don't think that discussing these two very low volume purchases would necessarily bring to mind those negative connotations, particularly as I mentioned wanting some of them for decades, and planning for them for years.
On a side note: You can't walk out of a dealership when they have the keys to your current car and won't give it back.
Not the word specifically, just the general sentiment.
First, I want to first share a toast to ridding ourselves of dealerships. I absolutely loathe them, and I haven't even bought a car from them. I've tried a couple of times and it was an awful experience even in the process before they had my money/keys.
I don't really want to get too personal here; I don't know your life story or your decisions or thought process. In my following rambling, I don't want to get too much into the weeds of your particular case. But the "parody" comment really came like I was reading a MMM April Fool's post. Here are a few interpretations to what was written:
"I couldn't bother getting solar panels because I considered them ugly, but now that they look cool and I was going to get a new roof anyway, it's literally the only choice any sane, thoughtful person could make- you know, saving the earth and all. I'm doing this for you, you should thank me", with the implication that you're making an environmentally conscious choice, but if the panels were ugly, then you wouldn't be bothered.
"I will pay any price for an new EV, no price is too high for saving the planet!" Again, this is the MMM forum, so this type of statement used to get a friendly facepunch! Since discovering the blog/forum a little over 10 years ago, I've been making some fairly drastic life changes. They were baby steps, but they were steps to life a more full life whilst getting out of the rat race of consumerism. I moved less than a mile away from work- with an enviously easy bicycle commute in the suburbs of Chicago (suburbs being notoriously difficult for this kind of thing). For several years our family owned one car; a Pontiac vibe. We now own two, just picked up a minivan with 180K miles on it and have since used it to haul pianos, plywood, drywall and such, as well as shuttle cousins around. But our collective mileage on both vehicles is ridiculously small; buying a new EV would take literally decades to make up for financially. Without trying to sound like beating my own drum too much, I would like to think that I've done pretty well in my effort to reduce my impact on the climate. We also eat significantly less meat than we used to (maybe 4 out of our 21 weekly meals), we reuse and repair most of our stuff and enjoy lots of cheap, healthy outdoor activities.
I realize my criticisms here are not received with open arms to most of the country. It isn't something that most people can just jump into either. But most people on this forum should be familiar with it at least. The idea that if you could only just buy that expensive new EV, solar roof, and battery, then your conscience is clear and you can live worry free, just seems like the same chasing the dragon of consumerism. What would you do if the EV wasn't an option? How are the negative externalities to vehicle ownership, especially a 4,000 lb heavy metal ridden machine, factoring into this? There are more than just CO2 emissions here. 6PPD, a chemical in vehicle tires, is killing the salmon in Puget sound. This comes from the tires wearing on the roads and that runoff going into the water. Heavier vehicles wear tires more. Imagine the amount of wear and tear saved if one had switched to a 40lb bicycle rather than an EV!I'm sorry, but this seems like a major stretch and a true "think of the children!" level of pearl clutching. "So many batteries! I'm so concerned about battery hoarding!"
If environmental impact is truly a consideration, I'd strongly advise that you put some thought (and a little math) into whether hoarding a whole bunch of KWH of LiIon battery capacity that's rarely used to it's full capacity is truly the best option moving forward.
It's not the buying an EV that's the issue at heart here. No one is particularly criticizing it on it's own. The criticism comes when the buying an EV is paired with holier-than-thou environmentalism, as though the person is making great sacrifices for the collective good, when in fact they are just buying a monolith to consumption.
The criticism comes when the buying an EV is paired with holier-than-thou environmentalism, as though the person is making great sacrifices for the collective good
We could all go back to the land and take a shovel outside when we have to shit......But for some reason, we just don't. In the meantime, doing what one can is important. And making products that people who don't think all that much about the environmental factor would also like and consider is good thing for all of us.
But I think that what you've quoted above and your comment sums it up completely for me. No matter what I would say about what I was planning, why I am a tesla customer, there would also be some reason I was "wrong". Some reason I was dumb, suckered, not doing enough environmentally. I wasn't looking for a critique, I was trying to open up the view into a tesla customer, but of course that went sideways :)
QuoteThe criticism comes when the buying an EV is paired with holier-than-thou environmentalism, as though the person is making great sacrifices for the collective good
I think this is really unfair. I was describing my though processes on why I was attracted to tesla as a company, why I wanted their products. It was just a 'here is what I was thinking when I made the decision' that I wanted their car, or I wanted their roof. I do surely regret mentioning it all. I personally am tired of talking about it, lol!
I wasn't looking for approval, I wasn't trying to be holier than thou, I was trying to say this is what I think, this is what I feel, this is why tesla products appeal to me. I was trying to provide basic information about the tesla customer base, which I considered myself a member of. Some people don't even beleive climate change is affected by people's activities.......so if someone doesn't beleive that, they would likely not be interested in an electric vehicle at all. However, my thought was that even that person who didn't beleive could understand that another person who beleived it was affecting climate change would target an EV, would want to support a company that was 100% EV focused.
So it was just intended as information on the tesla customer, and why they would buy.
Tesla finances:
https://twitter.com/ChrisBloomstran/status/1603371089853382657
In the beginning, Tesla was a dream. From that point to today, the company raised $32 billion in equity capital and earned a cumulative profit of $9 billion. Book value, firm equity, sums to $41 billion. The CEO has sold $40 billion of shares (all given as options), and counting.
Does Musk selling at this level bother any holders?
I'm starting to wonder about Musk's mental health. First he spends his fortune on a pot joke. Now he thinks the FBI paid Twitter to bury Hunter Biden content? That's not the kind of thinking done by world-class minds, it's the way people think when they've isolated themselves from real human beings and become social media repeater drones. It's crazy uncle thinking. Anyone who was not rich and behaved like E.M. is behaving would not have our respect right now.
If past behavior is a guide, E.M. will go for broke using his Tesla shares to finance Twitter into the ground.
We could all go back to the land and take a shovel outside when we have to shit......But for some reason, we just don't. In the meantime, doing what one can is important. And making products that people who don't think all that much about the environmental factor would also like and consider is good thing for all of us.
But I think that what you've quoted above and your comment sums it up completely for me. No matter what I would say about what I was planning, why I am a tesla customer, there would also be some reason I was "wrong". Some reason I was dumb, suckered, not doing enough environmentally. I wasn't looking for a critique, I was trying to open up the view into a tesla customer, but of course that went sideways :)
Yes, so take it one step further. Design society so that most people don't need to own a car! There are places in the world where most people don't even think about owning one, and it's not due to poverty. I'm pushing back on the assumption that, well, hey- we're stuck with cars and suburbs and mcmansions so I guess we can just shrug and make 300mile range behemoths and cover our roofs in silicone so that we aren't inconvenienced in any way as we plow our way into the future. We'll buy our way out!
The base assumption - that the car is inevitable - is the most dangerous one to me. Because it makes us complacent in the status quo (if we are indeed going to make headway against climate change), by swapping one huge unnecessary living-room-on-wheels for another. It makes it feel like if only we were to all buy EV's our environmental damage would be solved.
Re; the part in bold. The inverse can also be true. No matter how many counter points or interesting views that you come across, you seem to be convinced that buying into the Tesla ecosystm is the only "correct" way forward. I think the more each viewpoint pushes against each other here, the stronger one stands in their own convictions.
Like a person stuck on a treadmill getting fancy new walking shoes and sports drink and tv system being told - "hey, you know, you can just get off the treadmill", the sunk cost of the current lifestyle makes that a difficult leap. It is perceived as offensive and personal and insulting to bring up... and it's easier to just think about the cool new gel shoes that will finally solve your problems. Way better than shoveling shit, after all!
I'm starting to wonder about Musk's mental health. First he spends his fortune on a pot joke. Now he thinks the FBI paid Twitter to bury Hunter Biden content? That's not the kind of thinking done by world-class minds, it's the way people think when they've isolated themselves from real human beings and become social media repeater drones. It's crazy uncle thinking. Anyone who was not rich and behaved like E.M. is behaving would not have our respect right now.
If past behavior is a guide, E.M. will go for broke using his Tesla shares to finance Twitter into the ground.
I realize my criticisms here are not received with open arms to most of the country.You might take some time in self-reflection. Beating on a strawman is not making a valid criticism. If you choose to stop making caricatures to beat up and I would bet you get a better reception.
Absolutely! If you look at long term Tesla growth rates it's more like 50%!large dip on tesla stock price today.....at about 125 share price, I put the PE at slightly under 34 right now, with a peg of .75.
Based on the past 4 quarters, and the previous 4 quarters for the percent growth (which I got at 45%). Would love if someone would check and see if I calcualted this right! I used the EPS per quarter info out of tdamertrade, as I can see they do not update these numbers that often!
Stop using recent past growth to project future growth - the market is telling you that it isn't going to continue!
Yep. He's been going further and further off the deep end into the Qanon conspiracy bullshit.I'm starting to wonder about Musk's mental health. First he spends his fortune on a pot joke. Now he thinks the FBI paid Twitter to bury Hunter Biden content? That's not the kind of thinking done by world-class minds, it's the way people think when they've isolated themselves from real human beings and become social media repeater drones. It's crazy uncle thinking. Anyone who was not rich and behaved like E.M. is behaving would not have our respect right now.
If past behavior is a guide, E.M. will go for broke using his Tesla shares to finance Twitter into the ground.
Yeah I wondered about his mental health too. I thought he is just not a rational person, but more and more I feel like he is gone mental.
On a side note: You can't walk out of a dealership when they have the keys to your current car and won't give it back."You have two minutes to produce my keys, or I'm calling 911"
I realize my criticisms here are not received with open arms to most of the country.You might take some time in self-reflection. Beating on a strawman is not making a valid criticism. If you choose to stop making caricatures to beat up and I would bet you get a better reception.
The part I don't understand about Tesla versus other mid-range to aspirational car companies is the huge amount of risk.You are completely ignoring the liabilities, stranded assets, debt loads and other risks of the legacy manufacturers. As just one example: most of them have billions of dollars of book value in ICE engine factories which are going to be worthless pretty soon (within 10 years.)
I mean, looking at Mercedes-Benz, it trades on 5.2 P/E with a forward dividend yield of 8%. BMW, a close peer, trades on 3 P/E and 7%. Tesla doesn't pay a dividend. How is this company better/more valuable (by 8x or 12x respectively) than BMW/Mercedes Benz that both have been around for a long time, have proven products and a wealth of patents and experience, as well as a company culture that isn't nearly as toxic (racist) as Tesla? Honestly don't understand it, but I'm more a value investor.
You created exaggerated caricatures of mistymoney's statements and positions, then ridiculed the mistymoney via the exaggerated caricatures you created rather than engaging in honest discussion. You even put "quotes" around your exaggerated caricatures - which I would be inclined to call bald-face lying.I realize my criticisms here are not received with open arms to most of the country.You might take some time in self-reflection. Beating on a strawman is not making a valid criticism. If you choose to stop making caricatures to beat up and I would bet you get a better reception.
Beating on a strawman? Explain please. I feel I have been very fair to the counterargument.
The part I don't understand about Tesla versus other mid-range to aspirational car companies is the huge amount of risk.You are completely ignoring the liabilities, stranded assets, debt loads and other risks of the legacy manufacturers. As just one example: most of them have billions of dollars of book value in ICE engine factories which are going to be worthless pretty soon (within 10 years.)
I mean, looking at Mercedes-Benz, it trades on 5.2 P/E with a forward dividend yield of 8%. BMW, a close peer, trades on 3 P/E and 7%. Tesla doesn't pay a dividend. How is this company better/more valuable (by 8x or 12x respectively) than BMW/Mercedes Benz that both have been around for a long time, have proven products and a wealth of patents and experience, as well as a company culture that isn't nearly as toxic (racist) as Tesla? Honestly don't understand it, but I'm more a value investor.
Here's a look at Ford on the debt/liabilities issue: https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/heres-why-ford-motor-nyse:f-has-a-meaningful-debt-burden
Beyond that, switching all (or most) of a company's products from ICE to EV is quite risky. Are they going too fast (almost certainly not) Too slowly? Likely so, if they're not VAG or Chinese. What to do with those billions of dollars in ICE engine factories? Spend billions retooling to make electric motors? Where's the cash coming from, or do they need to issue more debt to finance it - at today's rates?
@mistymoney , which was your M3 configuration? I'm looking at the LR AWD in red with 19" wheels. Share your thoughts so far if you'd like. Our first EV was a 2022 Kia Niro and we love having an EV.
@UltraStache you certainly deserve a friendly MMM facepunch.
You just started cleaning up your finances at a later age. Are you seriously spending on a 60K car? unbelievable. Cars are a money sucking machines, this is lot worse.
You can get same utility with 10-15k spend.
Got no real axe to grind in this one, but it's clear that the Tesla bubble has burst now. As impressive as Tesla's growth has been, the market is clearly indication that a sharp slowdown is now baked in.
Got no real axe to grind in this one, but it's clear that the Tesla bubble has burst now. As impressive as Tesla's growth has been, the market is clearly indication that a sharp slowdown is now baked in.
@mistymoney , which was your M3 configuration? I'm looking at the LR AWD in red with 19" wheels. Share your thoughts so far if you'd like. Our first EV was a 2022 Kia Niro and we love having an EV.
@UltraStache you certainly deserve a friendly MMM facepunch.
You just started cleaning up your finances at a later age. Are you seriously spending on a 60K car? unbelievable. Cars are a money sucking machines, this is lot worse.
You can get same utility with 10-15k spend.
We could all go back to the land and take a shovel outside when we have to shit......But for some reason, we just don't. In the meantime, doing what one can is important. And making products that people who don't think all that much about the environmental factor would also like and consider is good thing for all of us.
But I think that what you've quoted above and your comment sums it up completely for me. No matter what I would say about what I was planning, why I am a tesla customer, there would also be some reason I was "wrong". Some reason I was dumb, suckered, not doing enough environmentally. I wasn't looking for a critique, I was trying to open up the view into a tesla customer, but of course that went sideways :)
Yes, so take it one step further. Design society so that most people don't need to own a car! There are places in the world where most people don't even think about owning one, and it's not due to poverty. I'm pushing back on the assumption that, well, hey- we're stuck with cars and suburbs and mcmansions so I guess we can just shrug and make 300mile range behemoths and cover our roofs in silicone so that we aren't inconvenienced in any way as we plow our way into the future. We'll buy our way out!
The base assumption - that the car is inevitable - is the most dangerous one to me. Because it makes us complacent in the status quo (if we are indeed going to make headway against climate change), by swapping one huge unnecessary living-room-on-wheels for another. It makes it feel like if only we were to all buy EV's our environmental damage would be solved.
Re; the part in bold. The inverse can also be true. No matter how many counter points or interesting views that you come across, you seem to be convinced that buying into the Tesla ecosystm is the only "correct" way forward. I think the more each viewpoint pushes against each other here, the stronger one stands in their own convictions.
Like a person stuck on a treadmill getting fancy new walking shoes and sports drink and tv system being told - "hey, you know, you can just get off the treadmill", the sunk cost of the current lifestyle makes that a difficult leap. It is perceived as offensive and personal and insulting to bring up... and it's easier to just think about the cool new gel shoes that will finally solve your problems. Way better than shoveling shit, after all!
Got no real axe to grind in this one, but it's clear that the Tesla bubble has burst now. As impressive as Tesla's growth has been, the market is clearly indication that a sharp slowdown is now baked in.
The market does not always act rationally and the stock price is not the company. The company continues to execute and grow rapidly. Since I’m an investor and not a trader the short term volatility does not concern me beyond the buying opportunity it presents.
You created exaggerated caricatures of mistymoney's statements and positions, then ridiculed the mistymoney via the exaggerated caricatures you created rather than engaging in honest discussion. You even put "quotes" around your exaggerated caricatures - which I would be inclined to call bald-face lying.I realize my criticisms here are not received with open arms to most of the country.You might take some time in self-reflection. Beating on a strawman is not making a valid criticism. If you choose to stop making caricatures to beat up and I would bet you get a better reception.
Beating on a strawman? Explain please. I feel I have been very fair to the counterargument.
Example: "I will pay any price for an new EV, no price is too high for saving the planet!"
I think you're advocating that we get rid of private car ownerships. I've spent time in a couple urban cities outside U.S. where I only use the public transportation. It was very nice. However, getting rid of cars is just not realistic in most areas in U.S.. The population is just too sparse. The only place that has the density is probably NYC but good luck making changes to the roads/infrastructure there. You've brought up this topic a couple times at least but I don't know how helpful it is to voice this particular concern on a forum though. Have you tried participating in city planning in your area? TBH, I don't even know where to start.
Got no real axe to grind in this one, but it's clear that the Tesla bubble has burst now. As impressive as Tesla's growth has been, the market is clearly indication that a sharp slowdown is now baked in.
The market does not always act rationally and the stock price is not the company. The company continues to execute and grow rapidly. Since I’m an investor and not a trader the short term volatility does not concern me beyond the buying opportunity it presents.
@mistymoney , which was your M3 configuration? I'm looking at the LR AWD in red with 19" wheels. Share your thoughts so far if you'd like. Our first EV was a 2022 Kia Niro and we love having an EV.
@UltraStache you certainly deserve a friendly MMM facepunch.
You just started cleaning up your finances at a later age. Are you seriously spending on a 60K car? unbelievable. Cars are a money sucking machines, this is lot worse.
You can get same utility with 10-15k spend.
I've realized there is a good amount of posters here who see his/her car as a utility, to get from point A to point B. They spend the minimum on a working car(it's a utility) and would be happy to drive a Camry or Corolla for 25 years.
I should have known that since this is a MMM forum.
But just remember that there are other market segments in which people want a Porsche, a fully loaded F150, a Mercedes, a Tesla, a BMW, etc. And in the future, who is to say that Tesla won't have vehicles in lower price points? Companies adapt.
Case in point, the auto enthusiasts at YouTube channel Out of Spec Reviews say they've tracked down a Tesla Model X that's clocked an impressive 200,000 miles while only losing 10 percent of its battery capacity. Not bad.
German Tesla Model S owner Hansjörg Gemmingen has been keeping the world apprised of his mileage over the years, as he aims to set new world records. Now, he's officially revealed that his Model S P85 has traveled over 1 million miles.
As far as Gemmingen is concerned, the new record will likely make it into the Guinness Book of World Records, which would be a major positive for Tesla and the EV industry as a whole.
Recently I listened to the recordings of 2 recent Twitter Spaces recordings in which Elon Musk discussed the challenges at Twitter. What he said was very rational. I had concern that the Twitter thing would be a big drag and that Elon Musk was no longer the same Elon Musk that I knew. I no longer has those concerns. If my understanding is correct, Twitter will stabilize in 6-12 months.Did you listen to the one where Elon was discussing banning journalists and hung up because he didn't like the feedback he was receiving? it didn't inspire confidence.
That said, the economy will still be rough on all auto makers, not just Tesla. The stock market will be rough until the economy turns for the better.
Recently I listened to the recordings of 2 recent Twitter Spaces recordings in which Elon Musk discussed the challenges at Twitter. What he said was very rational. I had concern that the Twitter thing would be a big drag and that Elon Musk was no longer the same Elon Musk that I knew. I no longer has those concerns. If my understanding is correct, Twitter will stabilize in 6-12 months.
That said, the economy will still be rough on all auto makers, not just Tesla. The stock market will be rough until the economy turns for the better.
Got no real axe to grind in this one, but it's clear that the Tesla bubble has burst now. As impressive as Tesla's growth has been, the market is clearly indication that a sharp slowdown is now baked in.
The market does not always act rationally and the stock price is not the company. The company continues to execute and grow rapidly. Since I’m an investor and not a trader the short term volatility does not concern me beyond the buying opportunity it presents.
All that really means is you have no capacity for re-evaluation of your thesis based on new evidence. Sure, the market doesn't act rationally, but that's not to say every huge drop in a company's stock is also irrational.
I think there is more nuance to this. You are positing a value over luxury proposition, which makes sense when you are looking at similar performance over time, just the ride is posh or not. But if we back up to look at cost per mile, I think the tesla is going to become far more competitive to the 25 years on a camry or corolla. And possibly emerging as the better deal.
Recently I listened to the recordings of 2 recent Twitter Spaces recordings in which Elon Musk discussed the challenges at Twitter. What he said was very rational. I had concern that the Twitter thing would be a big drag and that Elon Musk was no longer the same Elon Musk that I knew. I no longer has those concerns. If my understanding is correct, Twitter will stabilize in 6-12 months.
That said, the economy will still be rough on all auto makers, not just Tesla. The stock market will be rough until the economy turns for the better.
With a slowing economy, higher interest rates and lower consumer sentiment, now is the absolute worst time to mess with the sales model. I'll wouldn't be surprised if their 2023 sales are flat or decline from 2022. Probably on lower pricing too.
While Tesla will be fine in the long term, their path to recovery means figuring out a way to get rid of Musk. The sooner they make this call the better.
My friend, this is the MMM forum. I reserve the right to be hyperbolic and doll out facepunches. I am not being insulting or speaking with a tone or intent of malice. If that gets misconstrued as straw manning, then we are not speaking in the same context. I thought I was being clear with the quotes that they were not mistymoney's words, but rather an exaggerated interpretation of them.OK, buddy. You keep telling yourself that. It's still strawmanning.
Got no real axe to grind in this one, but it's clear that the Tesla bubble has burst now. As impressive as Tesla's growth has been, the market is clearly indication that a sharp slowdown is now baked in.
The market does not always act rationally and the stock price is not the company. The company continues to execute and grow rapidly. Since I’m an investor and not a trader the short term volatility does not concern me beyond the buying opportunity it presents.
All that really means is you have no capacity for re-evaluation of your thesis based on new evidence. Sure, the market doesn't act rationally, but that's not to say every huge drop in a company's stock is also irrational.
I think there is more nuance to this. You are positing a value over luxury proposition, which makes sense when you are looking at similar performance over time, just the ride is posh or not. But if we back up to look at cost per mile, I think the tesla is going to become far more competitive to the 25 years on a camry or corolla. And possibly emerging as the better deal.
This makes no sense to me regarding tesla. People who drop $70-100k on a car obviously don't care about "cost of ownership"! Only reason to buy BMW, Mercedes and Tesla are luxury, image, and for the latter; greenwashing. Who spends $100k on a model X, then pat themselves on the back because it's $1000/year lower over time?? Absurd. (and most will probably ditch for something new in 3-5 years anyway).
Tesla has been successful by targeting the "money is no object" and "I want to look cool and green at the same time" crowd. And it's worked pretty well. Add in some irrational investors and a blindly uncritical media coverage of their loony CEO and the stock has done well too.
You created exaggerated caricatures of mistymoney's statements and positions, then ridiculed the mistymoney via the exaggerated caricatures you created rather than engaging in honest discussion. You even put "quotes" around your exaggerated caricatures - which I would be inclined to call bald-face lying.I realize my criticisms here are not received with open arms to most of the country.You might take some time in self-reflection. Beating on a strawman is not making a valid criticism. If you choose to stop making caricatures to beat up and I would bet you get a better reception.
Beating on a strawman? Explain please. I feel I have been very fair to the counterargument.
Example: "I will pay any price for an new EV, no price is too high for saving the planet!"
My friend, this is the MMM forum. I reserve the right to be hyperbolic and doll out facepunches. I am not being insulting or speaking with a tone or intent of malice. If that gets misconstrued as straw manning, then we are not speaking in the same context. I thought I was being clear with the quotes that they were not mistymoney's words, but rather an exaggerated interpretation of them.
What would you call it, if not irrational, for a company to lose 60% of its stock price value, at the same time it’s making industry leading margins and growing 40-50% YOY, mostly because of macro declines and largely irrelevant Twitter noise. I could understand some amount of drop due to Elon’s stock sales and larger recession fears, but the stock price has become completely detached from the company’s execution. This will eventually be rectified, which makes the current stock price attractive IMO.
I'd call it a realization that 40-50% yoy growth can't happen forever. If it continues for another ~12 years, Tesla would be the only car company left in the world.Everyone in the discussion realizes that as a general concept. However:
I'd call it a realization that 40-50% yoy growth can't happen forever. If it continues for another ~12 years, Tesla would be the only car company left in the world.3) Tesla doesn't just sell cars. Sure, that's the biggest chunk of their current business - but if you overfocus on that, you miss the potentially bigger picture:[/li]
- Tesla is well established in energy markets - specifically solar installs, storage installs and grid services. Just renewable energy installations were ~$1T globally in 2022 and are expected to continue rising rapidly.
- Tesla is now a retail electricity provider.
- Tesla sells car insurance.
[/list]
I'd call it a realization that 40-50% yoy growth can't happen forever. If it continues for another ~12 years, Tesla would be the only car company left in the world.Everyone in the discussion realizes that as a general concept. However:
1) That same argument has been made for over a decade, with no signs of slowing yet. Why specifically should it be a big deal in 2022 when there is no definitive sign of slowing?
2) Disruption can cause huge shifts in markets. At one point Ford had 75% of the global motor vehicle market. Later on, GM had well over 50%. If Tesla hits just 25% of the global car market, that's a trillion dollars a year in revenue from car sales.
3) Tesla doesn't just sell cars. Sure, that's the biggest chunk of their current business - but if you overfocus on that, you miss the potentially bigger picture:
- Tesla is well established in energy markets - specifically solar installs, storage installs and grid services. Just renewable energy installations were ~$1T globally in 2022 and are expected to continue rising rapidly.
- Tesla is now a retail electricity provider.
- Tesla sells car insurance.
- Tesla now produces a portion of their own battery cells at a rate where they can supply 1k vehicles/week, capturing more of the supply chain value.
- Medium and heavy duty trucks/buses will have huge uptake of electrification over the next decade - and Tesla just delivered their first few dozen Semi.
This base model comparison should settle the question about whether the Tesla model 3 is an economical car. If anyone is wondering why Chevy made the Bolt like they did, this is why. It could be more economical than the longtime leader among cheap compact sedans, the Toyota Corolla.I disagree with their methods and calculations. They show far too much depreciation for the Tesla, and assume that owners of these cars will sell after 5 years. A value minded owner will not sell after only 5 years, and look at how Teslas actually depreciate before swallowing this data. How much is a 2018 - first year for significant production of model 3 - Tesla Model 3 selling for now, and how much was it new? One local example is a Tesla Model 3 LR RWD. New that was a $45,200 car. The cheapest used one locally has 29k miles and is $38,899, for a total depreciation over 5 years (2023 model years are out now) of $6,301. Edmunds assumes $22,533 in depreciation! I'm also not sure why repairs are listed as $2,100 when the Tesla warranty is 8 years / unlimited miles for powertrain and 4 years / 50k miles for everything else. That should probably be zero. So far we're at $18,332 in outright errors or intentional misstatements. I won't bother going further, it seems pretty worthless as a data point.
You created exaggerated caricatures of mistymoney's statements and positions, then ridiculed the mistymoney via the exaggerated caricatures you created rather than engaging in honest discussion. You even put "quotes" around your exaggerated caricatures - which I would be inclined to call bald-face lying.I realize my criticisms here are not received with open arms to most of the country.You might take some time in self-reflection. Beating on a strawman is not making a valid criticism. If you choose to stop making caricatures to beat up and I would bet you get a better reception.
Beating on a strawman? Explain please. I feel I have been very fair to the counterargument.
Example: "I will pay any price for an new EV, no price is too high for saving the planet!"
My friend, this is the MMM forum. I reserve the right to be hyperbolic and doll out facepunches. I am not being insulting or speaking with a tone or intent of malice. If that gets misconstrued as straw manning, then we are not speaking in the same context. I thought I was being clear with the quotes that they were not mistymoney's words, but rather an exaggerated interpretation of them.
That was not at all clear and not how quoting works. If TomTX hadn't pointed out that you were misquoting Misty I would have assumed she wrote the words you were placing in quotes. Perhaps you need a face punch for feeling the need to “exaggerate” or parady someone’s clearly stated words to bolster your argument and sense of superiority.
which I would be inclined to call bald-face lying.
Got no real axe to grind in this one, but it's clear that the Tesla bubble has burst now. As impressive as Tesla's growth has been, the market is clearly indication that a sharp slowdown is now baked in.
The market does not always act rationally and the stock price is not the company. The company continues to execute and grow rapidly. Since I’m an investor and not a trader the short term volatility does not concern me beyond the buying opportunity it presents.
All that really means is you have no capacity for re-evaluation of your thesis based on new evidence. Sure, the market doesn't act rationally, but that's not to say every huge drop in a company's stock is also irrational.
however, you interpret it as completely rational, and the upmovement as irrational. How is that different?
Lots of cars look like they didn't depreciate much in the last few years, but that's just a pandemic artifact. Used car prices are already falling and they'll fall a lot in the next year or two, and then Tesla (and all other cars) depreciation will look normal again.
But I'm no warren buffet so we'll see! I've told myself I'll hang on to them for at least 2 quarters to see if their earnings continue to grow.Keep in mind that 1Q revenue tends to dip from 4Q while also being a significant uptick from the prior year 1Q
This thread has been a treat to read :D
My 2 cents, yes i think it's a great investment right now. I picked up Tesla stock this week, I haven't held TSLA since 2013 (yes I'm kicking myself for selling after making 30% in less than a month), but finally with the P/E below 40, to me, that's a good value for the company that continues to grow production as well continues to create new market segments.
Other than the P/E finally coming down, the main reason I'm excited for Tesla is it's semi production. I know they only have 1 factory currently and there's only so many batteries to go around, but I think this will be huge growing market. Every company on earth is pledging to reduce their carbon footprint by crazy amounts in the next 10, 20, 30 years... the truth is most have no clue how they'll get there. They will be hungry to find solutions anywhere they can (hopefully not C offsets), and electrifying their fleet seems like a great solution to hit their targets. (this assumption of course is predicated there will continue to be market pressure for companies to continue to go green, and that TSLA will hold
But I'm no warren buffet so we'll see! I've told myself I'll hang on to them for at least 2 quarters to see if their earnings continue to grow.
This thread has been a treat to read :D
My 2 cents, yes i think it's a great investment right now. I picked up Tesla stock this week, I haven't held TSLA since 2013 (yes I'm kicking myself for selling after making 30% in less than a month), but finally with the P/E below 40, to me, that's a good value for the company that continues to grow production as well continues to create new market segments.
Other than the P/E finally coming down, the main reason I'm excited for Tesla is it's semi production. I know they only have 1 factory currently and there's only so many batteries to go around, but I think this will be huge growing market. Every company on earth is pledging to reduce their carbon footprint by crazy amounts in the next 10, 20, 30 years... the truth is most have no clue how they'll get there. They will be hungry to find solutions anywhere they can (hopefully not C offsets), and electrifying their fleet seems like a great solution to hit their targets. (this assumption of course is predicated there will continue to be market pressure for companies to continue to go green, and that TSLA will hold
But I'm no warren buffet so we'll see! I've told myself I'll hang on to them for at least 2 quarters to see if their earnings continue to grow.
Yep, market has gifted a lot of former TSLA investors a great re-entry point. I agree with you on the potential of the semi. I agree companies will love to tout their green credentials while lowering their C footprint. However, I don’t think the green aspects are what is going to drive semi sells. The fleet economics alone will be the primary driver. Once Pepsi's real world results verify Tesla’s semi specs, then the game has changed overnight and any fleet not operating EVs will be at a competitive disadvantage and paying a premium to ship their goods to market. The commercial transition to EV will happen much faster and with more urgency than the retail EV conversion, which involves converting one car owner at a time.
This thread has been a treat to read :D
My 2 cents, yes i think it's a great investment right now. I picked up Tesla stock this week, I haven't held TSLA since 2013 (yes I'm kicking myself for selling after making 30% in less than a month), but finally with the P/E below 40, to me, that's a good value for the company that continues to grow production as well continues to create new market segments.
Other than the P/E finally coming down, the main reason I'm excited for Tesla is it's semi production. I know they only have 1 factory currently and there's only so many batteries to go around, but I think this will be huge growing market. Every company on earth is pledging to reduce their carbon footprint by crazy amounts in the next 10, 20, 30 years... the truth is most have no clue how they'll get there. They will be hungry to find solutions anywhere they can (hopefully not C offsets), and electrifying their fleet seems like a great solution to hit their targets. (this assumption of course is predicated there will continue to be market pressure for companies to continue to go green, and that TSLA will hold
But I'm no warren buffet so we'll see! I've told myself I'll hang on to them for at least 2 quarters to see if their earnings continue to grow.
Yep, market has gifted a lot of former TSLA investors a great re-entry point. I agree with you on the potential of the semi. I agree companies will love to tout their green credentials while lowering their C footprint. However, I don’t think the green aspects are what is going to drive semi sells. The fleet economics alone will be the primary driver. Once Pepsi's real world results verify Tesla’s semi specs, then the game has changed overnight and any fleet not operating EVs will be at a competitive disadvantage and paying a premium to ship their goods to market. The commercial transition to EV will happen much faster and with more urgency than the retail EV conversion, which involves converting one car owner at a time.
I really hope you're right! Pepsi has the first real world test case, but several major companies have placed orders as well. I hope the commercial transition to EV is fast too, the incentives are there... especially because these companies need to replace their fleet on an on-going basis anyway, so the investment to EV is really just the delta over the normal BAU fleet investment.
Even with me being bullish on the semi growth, I don't know if the semi will ever be a significant part of their revenues, I think the car segment will continue to grow for quite some time. This is just my opinion, but it feels to me like we're just now leaving the 'early adopter' phase...no? EVs have been around for over 10 years, but there's always been barriers of ownership. Now it feels like EVs have worked their way to being normalized... people are actively planning their homes around future-proofing their power systems, there are so many good options out now. Tesla won't keep it's EV market share going forward, but I don't think they even need to for the current share price to be a good deal.
Tesla deliveries missed on Q4: 405k vs 427k/417k consensus. It had 40% yearly growth vs 2021 and 18% growth from Q3 2022. Excess inventory, or maybe cars in ships, is 9.4% of Q4 deliveries.
https://electrek.co/2023/01/02/tesla-record-vehicles-delivered-q4-2022/
Given the EOY incentives (in the US and China), interest rates, and covid in China, this wasn't too much of a surprise. Semi deliveries from my quick search were 32; it'll be fascinating to watch those deliveries grow.
At some point I told my EV-crazy son that if Tesla hit $100 a share I'd buy him a few shares, but given Musk's behavior especially wrt Russia/Ukraine, I'm not sure I could bring myself to do it.You are a good human, Walt 👏🏻
I think it depends on where the FSD goes. If Tesla can move freight without drivers in 5-10 years? Kind of crazy to think of but I think that is where they are trying to get.FSD... and also the federal and state govt approvals for FSD approval. (Regardless of whether it's TSLA, Ford, GMC, etc.) And how the auto insurance industry could be impacted by FSD - if the car's software is driving then is the driver still liable? I have often wondered if/to what extent the auto insurance industry would lobby against FSD.
I think it depends on where the FSD goes. If Tesla can move freight without drivers in 5-10 years? Kind of crazy to think of but I think that is where they are trying to get.FSD... and also the federal and state govt approvals for FSD approval. (Regardless of whether it's TSLA, Ford, GMC, etc.) And how the auto insurance industry could be impacted by FSD - if the car's software is driving then is the driver still liable? I have often wondered if/to what extent the auto insurance industry would lobby against FSD.
I think it depends on where the FSD goes. If Tesla can move freight without drivers in 5-10 years? Kind of crazy to think of but I think that is where they are trying to get.FSD... and also the federal and state govt approvals for FSD approval. (Regardless of whether it's TSLA, Ford, GMC, etc.) And how the auto insurance industry could be impacted by FSD - if the car's software is driving then is the driver still liable? I have often wondered if/to what extent the auto insurance industry would lobby against FSD.
What is the insight here on the big price drop? The Q4 miss on #cars seemed pretty minor, but the family in a tesla off a cliff in california seems to be big news.
Admittedly I have not read the whole thread, but:
Are people who've had Tesla stock for a while continuing to hold? Tesla is one of the few individual stocks I hold, having bought around 10 years ago. I'm holding on to it for now, although it's painful to watch its continued decline (down another 14% today alone!).
What is the insight here on the big price drop? The Q4 miss on #cars seemed pretty minor, but the family in a tesla off a cliff in california seems to be big news.
The stock drop is all about the miss as it suggests that Tesla's high growth is starting to slow. If Tesla is starting to look more like a car company rather than a tech stock, why should it be valued so high?
As JP Morgan's Brinkman noted, "We have questioned the company’s ability to sustain this rate of growth [50% CAGR]."
I think we can assume that most CEOs are assholes, this one is just very publically and vocally so and going very much against the grain of tesla's core consumer base, which naturally is much greener and forward thinking that those who don't consider the environment when making purchases. Ford and GM were supporting trump at one point, and legislation that would hinder the move to EV weren't they? So what is the alternative? Toyata was an early forerunner, and now that they got behind for whatever reason, seems they are trying to delay the move to EVs until they can catch up? pretty gross considering the climate crisis.
What is the insight here on the big price drop? The Q4 miss on #cars seemed pretty minor, but the family in a tesla off a cliff in california seems to be big news.
The stock drop is all about the miss as it suggests that Tesla's high growth is starting to slow. If Tesla is starting to look more like a car company rather than a tech stock, why should it be valued so high?
As JP Morgan's Brinkman noted, "We have questioned the company’s ability to sustain this rate of growth [50% CAGR]."
I think we can assume that most CEOs are assholes, this one is just very publically and vocally so and going very much against the grain of tesla's core consumer base, which naturally is much greener and forward thinking that those who don't consider the environment when making purchases. Ford and GM were supporting trump at one point, and legislation that would hinder the move to EV weren't they? So what is the alternative? Toyata was an early forerunner, and now that they got behind for whatever reason, seems they are trying to delay the move to EVs until they can catch up? pretty gross considering the climate crisis.
Source for the bolded? I spent some time searching the interwebs and didn't find much of interest.
Even if Ford and GM resisted EVs initially, they are all in now. GM is planning on investing $35 billion in EVs and Ford $50 billion, and they've secured long-term partnerships with lithium mining companies (https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-big-boys-have-a-grip-on-ev-batteries-the-industry-cannot-break-free-from-207613.html).
More on what's going on behind the scenes with lithium mining: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-29/tesla-tsla-lithium-mine-strategy-tested-by-ford-gm
What is the insight here on the big price drop? The Q4 miss on #cars seemed pretty minor, but the family in a tesla off a cliff in california seems to be big news.
The stock drop is all about the miss as it suggests that Tesla's high growth is starting to slow. If Tesla is starting to look more like a car company rather than a tech stock, why should it be valued so high?
As JP Morgan's Brinkman noted, "We have questioned the company’s ability to sustain this rate of growth [50% CAGR]."
The miss in deliveries does not confirm or even suggest a demand problem.
Tesla increased production 47% YOY despite COVID and supply chain issues.
Elon Musk‘s electric-vehicle maker said Monday that it delivered about 1.31 million vehicles last year, up roughly 40% from 2021. The company would have needed to hand over more than 1.4 million vehicles to meet its initial goal of increasing deliveries by 50% or more.
I think we can assume that most CEOs are assholes, this one is just very publically and vocally so and going very much against the grain of tesla's core consumer base, which naturally is much greener and forward thinking that those who don't consider the environment when making purchases. Ford and GM were supporting trump at one point, and legislation that would hinder the move to EV weren't they? So what is the alternative? Toyata was an early forerunner, and now that they got behind for whatever reason, seems they are trying to delay the move to EVs until they can catch up? pretty gross considering the climate crisis.
Source for the bolded? I spent some time searching the interwebs and didn't find much of interest.
Even if Ford and GM resisted EVs initially, they are all in now. GM is planning on investing $35 billion in EVs and Ford $50 billion, and they've secured long-term partnerships with lithium mining companies (https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-big-boys-have-a-grip-on-ev-batteries-the-industry-cannot-break-free-from-207613.html).
More on what's going on behind the scenes with lithium mining: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-29/tesla-tsla-lithium-mine-strategy-tested-by-ford-gm
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-10-28/automakers-trump-emissions-california-lawsuit
https://www.foxnews.com/video/5269458985001
That seems like a major mischaracterization considering the context of this discussion. Ford/GM have worked with and hosted presidents from both sides of the aisle, as you expect from any large business in the US. Nothing they have done was on the level of what Elon has done in the past couple months.Admittedly I have not read the whole thread, but:
Are people who've had Tesla stock for a while continuing to hold? Tesla is one of the few individual stocks I hold, having bought around 10 years ago. I'm holding on to it for now, although it's painful to watch its continued decline (down another 14% today alone!).
I am holding and adding. I do have concerns about musk being a negative factor in product demand, I don't have concerns about the products themselves.
I think we can assume that most CEOs are assholes, this one is just very publically and vocally so and going very much against the grain of tesla's core consumer base, which naturally is much greener and forward thinking that those who don't consider the environment when making purchases. Ford and GM were supporting trump at one point, and legislation that would hinder the move to EV weren't they? So what is the alternative? Toyata was an early forerunner, and now that they got behind for whatever reason, seems they are trying to delay the move to EVs until they can catch up? pretty gross considering the climate crisis.
Buy merch from quieter assholes? that seems what some are doing....
I think we can assume that most CEOs are assholes, this one is just very publically and vocally so and going very much against the grain of tesla's core consumer base, which naturally is much greener and forward thinking that those who don't consider the environment when making purchases. Ford and GM were supporting trump at one point, and legislation that would hinder the move to EV weren't they? So what is the alternative? Toyata was an early forerunner, and now that they got behind for whatever reason, seems they are trying to delay the move to EVs until they can catch up? pretty gross considering the climate crisis.
Source for the bolded? I spent some time searching the interwebs and didn't find much of interest.
Even if Ford and GM resisted EVs initially, they are all in now. GM is planning on investing $35 billion in EVs and Ford $50 billion, and they've secured long-term partnerships with lithium mining companies (https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-big-boys-have-a-grip-on-ev-batteries-the-industry-cannot-break-free-from-207613.html).
More on what's going on behind the scenes with lithium mining: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-29/tesla-tsla-lithium-mine-strategy-tested-by-ford-gm
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-10-28/automakers-trump-emissions-california-lawsuit
https://www.foxnews.com/video/5269458985001
The first article isn't about EVs, but rather one state's special status to set emissions standards vs federal standards. For what it's worth, Ford later reversed its position on this: https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022/06/07/ford-sides-with-epa-and-california-in-lawsuit.html
Did you actually watch the video you linked to, because it's basically Ford talking up its investments in EVs, and this was back in 2017.
I think we can assume that most CEOs are assholes, this one is just very publically and vocally so and going very much against the grain of tesla's core consumer base, which naturally is much greener and forward thinking that those who don't consider the environment when making purchases. Ford and GM were supporting trump at one point, and legislation that would hinder the move to EV weren't they? So what is the alternative? Toyata was an early forerunner, and now that they got behind for whatever reason, seems they are trying to delay the move to EVs until they can catch up? pretty gross considering the climate crisis.
Source for the bolded? I spent some time searching the interwebs and didn't find much of interest.
Even if Ford and GM resisted EVs initially, they are all in now. GM is planning on investing $35 billion in EVs and Ford $50 billion, and they've secured long-term partnerships with lithium mining companies (https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-big-boys-have-a-grip-on-ev-batteries-the-industry-cannot-break-free-from-207613.html).
More on what's going on behind the scenes with lithium mining: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-29/tesla-tsla-lithium-mine-strategy-tested-by-ford-gm
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-10-28/automakers-trump-emissions-california-lawsuit
https://www.foxnews.com/video/5269458985001
The first article isn't about EVs, but rather one state's special status to set emissions standards vs federal standards. For what it's worth, Ford later reversed its position on this: https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022/06/07/ford-sides-with-epa-and-california-in-lawsuit.html
Did you actually watch the video you linked to, because it's basically Ford talking up its investments in EVs, and this was back in 2017.
I don't even know what your going for here. My original sentence that you requested support for (and later said didn't matter anyway, so why keep hammering this into the ground?) regarded historic support for trump and attempts to delaying stricter emissions standards. I did include the "at some point" in the original statement so whether they have changed their tune by now is irrelevant and of course they're all on the bandwagon now. The point was about CEOs being self serving assholes. Musk is an asshole, but at least he's an 100% EV asshole.
If people think another CEO isn't an asshole - 99% chance they just haven't looked into it. To reiterate - Musk is a loud asshole, the others are quiet assholes. If you wanna prove one of these CEO is not asshole, ok?
I think we can assume that most CEOs are assholes, this one is just very publically and vocally so and going very much against the grain of tesla's core consumer base, which naturally is much greener and forward thinking that those who don't consider the environment when making purchases. Ford and GM were supporting trump at one point, and legislation that would hinder the move to EV weren't they? So what is the alternative? Toyata was an early forerunner, and now that they got behind for whatever reason, seems they are trying to delay the move to EVs until they can catch up? pretty gross considering the climate crisis.
Source for the bolded? I spent some time searching the interwebs and didn't find much of interest.
Even if Ford and GM resisted EVs initially, they are all in now. GM is planning on investing $35 billion in EVs and Ford $50 billion, and they've secured long-term partnerships with lithium mining companies (https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-big-boys-have-a-grip-on-ev-batteries-the-industry-cannot-break-free-from-207613.html).
More on what's going on behind the scenes with lithium mining: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-29/tesla-tsla-lithium-mine-strategy-tested-by-ford-gm
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-10-28/automakers-trump-emissions-california-lawsuit
https://www.foxnews.com/video/5269458985001
The first article isn't about EVs, but rather one state's special status to set emissions standards vs federal standards. For what it's worth, Ford later reversed its position on this: https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022/06/07/ford-sides-with-epa-and-california-in-lawsuit.html
Did you actually watch the video you linked to, because it's basically Ford talking up its investments in EVs, and this was back in 2017.
I don't even know what your going for here. My original sentence that you requested support for (and later said didn't matter anyway, so why keep hammering this into the ground?) regarded historic support for trump and attempts to delaying stricter emissions standards. I did include the "at some point" in the original statement so whether they have changed their tune by now is irrelevant and of course they're all on the bandwagon now. The point was about CEOs being self serving assholes. Musk is an asshole, but at least he's an 100% EV asshole.
If people think another CEO isn't an asshole - 99% chance they just haven't looked into it. To reiterate - Musk is a loud asshole, the others are quiet assholes. If you wanna prove one of these CEO is not asshole, ok?
Watch the video, it's a master class in PR. The Fox News guy repeatedly tries to get the Ford spokesperson to give Trump glowing praise, yet he carefully navigates a neutral position while staying focused on the positive. The closest he comes is expressing support for Trump's economic and regulatory goals. This is pretty standard stuff for corps dealing with presidential administrations. And, again, the Ford guy leads with emphasizing their investment in EVs. Regarding this discussion and your point, this video is not a good example of Ford supporting Trump.
What difference does it make if Ford or other automakers were previously wary of EVs but have change their minds and now are all in? It's a good thing when a company can admit an error and correct course, Elon should learn from their example. Established automakers are now committed to EVs, which is great progress and great for the environment, yet some folks don't want to let them move on from positions they held 5+ years ago, which in Ford's case happened under a different CEO. Honestly I don't get it
Nor do I accept that all CEOs are self serving assholes, a false equivalence fallacy being used to justify Musk's actions. CEOs should be judged on the merits of their individual behavior. Ideally, CEOs aren't making horrible statements in private (if nothing else, this stuff often becomes public), but it's far worse when a CEO makes such statements in public.
I'm not justifying shit. If someone is going to change their car purchase plans due to musk's tweets - hey good for them. What company will they buy from instead, and why is that company bettter at delivering what they want in a car and supporting that buyers' ideals than tesla? And how are they investigating that?
And how are people thinking about a company vs and individual person and what those entities are separately or jointly bring to the table for that person?
elon's an asshole so I'm going to buy a ford mach-e. So - you're supporting a company selling more ICE vehicles than EVs. They'll be up to 40% EV by 2030........Because musk has verbal diarrhea on twitter. ok. good for you? have fun with it?
I am holding and adding. I do have concerns about musk being a negative factor in product demand, I don't have concerns about the products themselves.
...
I think it depends on where the FSD goes. If Tesla can move freight without drivers in 5-10 years? Kind of crazy to think of but I think that is where they are trying to get.FSD... and also the federal and state govt approvals for FSD approval. (Regardless of whether it's TSLA, Ford, GMC, etc.) And how the auto insurance industry could be impacted by FSD - if the car's software is driving then is the driver still liable? I have often wondered if/to what extent the auto insurance industry would lobby against FSD.
What is the insight here on the big price drop? The Q4 miss on #cars seemed pretty minor, but the family in a tesla off a cliff in california seems to be big news.
The stock drop is all about the miss as it suggests that Tesla's high growth is starting to slow. If Tesla is starting to look more like a car company rather than a tech stock, why should it be valued so high?
As JP Morgan's Brinkman noted, "We have questioned the company’s ability to sustain this rate of growth [50% CAGR]."
The miss in deliveries does not confirm or even suggest a demand problem.
Bolded. That's not what Brinkman stated. Tesla will continue to sell more cars but perhaps not at 50% CAGR anymore.
I guess he's saying that's a demand problem? Based on an arbitrary growth rate (why not 75%? or 30%?).QuoteTesla increased production 47% YOY despite COVID and supply chain issues.
Tesla increased deliveries "only" 40% from last year. Unfortunately, that's less than Musk stated earlier this year.Quote from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks-tesla-comes-up-short-of-2022-delivery-target-as-growth-slows-11672680081Elon Musk‘s electric-vehicle maker said Monday that it delivered about 1.31 million vehicles last year, up roughly 40% from 2021. The company would have needed to hand over more than 1.4 million vehicles to meet its initial goal of increasing deliveries by 50% or more.
When a company gives guidance, and there's a miss, it affects the stock price. Mr Market has always worked this way.
What is the insight here on the big price drop? The Q4 miss on #cars seemed pretty minor, but the family in a tesla off a cliff in california seems to be big news.
I read the article, and 1- there is no indication that autopilot or FSD was involved, and emergency services was shocked that there was any survivor when they first saw movement, and then it turned out all family members were injured but alive. I think that is saying something about the saftey of the car?
Interested to hear others' interpretation on this.
Wishing the family the best recovery, of course. Don't mean to seem careless of them at all in discussing this event in the investment context.
But I am wondering why everything bad that happens to in a tesla is front page news with the Tesla as an emphasis. Someone in a tesla caught on camera picking their nose at main and central streets! Of course if enhanced autopilot or FSD was a factor, that I can see being quite newsworty. But so far not the case according to reports.
Although i was targeting acquiring 1-2 shares per payperiod, the PE I calculate now is about 28? So I picked up some extra today (Payday is Friday)- and lengthening my expectation on seeing an upside on tesla overall. My initial purchase of 100 shares (now 300 after the split) is down over 50%. My goal will be to buy in dribs and drabs here and there with a target of somewhere between 600-1000 shares. So will keep buying tesla as a very small portion of my regular investments until I hit the target amount, or I retire and stop accumulating, whichever comes first.
What is the insight here on the big price drop? The Q4 miss on #cars seemed pretty minor, but the family in a tesla off a cliff in california seems to be big news.
I read the article, and 1- there is no indication that autopilot or FSD was involved, and emergency services was shocked that there was any survivor when they first saw movement, and then it turned out all family members were injured but alive. I think that is saying something about the saftey of the car?
Interested to hear others' interpretation on this.
Wishing the family the best recovery, of course. Don't mean to seem careless of them at all in discussing this event in the investment context.
But I am wondering why everything bad that happens to in a tesla is front page news with the Tesla as an emphasis. Someone in a tesla caught on camera picking their nose at main and central streets! Of course if enhanced autopilot or FSD was a factor, that I can see being quite newsworty. But so far not the case according to reports.
Although i was targeting acquiring 1-2 shares per payperiod, the PE I calculate now is about 28? So I picked up some extra today (Payday is Friday)- and lengthening my expectation on seeing an upside on tesla overall. My initial purchase of 100 shares (now 300 after the split) is down over 50%. My goal will be to buy in dribs and drabs here and there with a target of somewhere between 600-1000 shares. So will keep buying tesla as a very small portion of my regular investments until I hit the target amount, or I retire and stop accumulating, whichever comes first.
FWIW, the father drove off the cliff intentionally in an attempted suicide. Miracle all survived and testament to Tesla safety features and build quality. This exact location has claimed 30 lives in as many years from cars going off the cliff. Media loves to sensationalize every incident involving a Tesla will sensationalized or misleading reporting. Every Tesla vehicle fire is headline news even though ICE fires occur at a much higher rate.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tesla-driver-plunged-family-california-cliff-purpose-officials-say-rcna64170
You’ll notice this article attributes the children’ survival to their safety seats (even though they’re 4 and 7 years old) and we’re the parents also in child safety seats? Heaven forbid the Tesla get any credit for the outcome...
Here we go again. An analyst “questioning” forward demand is not proof of a demand problem.
Can you concede that when Musk stated more than 40% growth there may have been factors that were unknown. Perhaps he didn’t factor in a global economic downturn. Ongoing war in Europe. Rampant COVID outbreak in China. Continued global supply chain and logistics issues. Passage of the IRA, which pushed off remain in the US to 2023. Given all this its amazing to me that Tesla grew deliveries by 40% and production by 47% this year. If Musk had sandbagged and put out a goal of 35%, everyone would have their mind blown that Tesla beat their goal by 5% and achieved 40% YOY growth! What manufacturing-based company does that in this environment!
Lastly, and what you continue to ignore, is that the difference between the production and deliveries is not unsold inventory sitting on dealer lots. It's largely cars that already have buyers, but are in route. It represents approximately two weeks of Tesla production and in two weeks times all these cars will be delivered and in the hand of their owners.
Here we go again. An analyst “questioning” forward demand is not proof of a demand problem.
Can you concede that when Musk stated more than 40% growth there may have been factors that were unknown. Perhaps he didn’t factor in a global economic downturn. Ongoing war in Europe. Rampant COVID outbreak in China. Continued global supply chain and logistics issues. Passage of the IRA, which pushed off remain in the US to 2023. Given all this its amazing to me that Tesla grew deliveries by 40% and production by 47% this year. If Musk had sandbagged and put out a goal of 35%, everyone would have their mind blown that Tesla beat their goal by 5% and achieved 40% YOY growth! What manufacturing-based company does that in this environment!
I was explaining why Tesla stock dropped yesterday. Do you disagree that it was because a lot of stock holders are worried about Tesla's growth rate?*
If you have an alternative explanation for the sell off, we're listening.QuoteLastly, and what you continue to ignore, is that the difference between the production and deliveries is not unsold inventory sitting on dealer lots. It's largely cars that already have buyers, but are in route. It represents approximately two weeks of Tesla production and in two weeks times all these cars will be delivered and in the hand of their owners.
For earnings, it's all about booked revenue.
Legacy manufacturers book full revenue per car when the car leaves the line. That's because dealers buy their cars.
Tesla books full revenue per car when the car is delivered to the end user.
This is why the market/analysts/large holders pay attention to deliveries rather than production for Tesla.
* There's also concern about EPS, too, with the rebates in China and the US.
Here we go again. An analyst “questioning” forward demand is not proof of a demand problem.
Can you concede that when Musk stated more than 40% growth there may have been factors that were unknown. Perhaps he didn’t factor in a global economic downturn. Ongoing war in Europe. Rampant COVID outbreak in China. Continued global supply chain and logistics issues. Passage of the IRA, which pushed off remain in the US to 2023. Given all this its amazing to me that Tesla grew deliveries by 40% and production by 47% this year. If Musk had sandbagged and put out a goal of 35%, everyone would have their mind blown that Tesla beat their goal by 5% and achieved 40% YOY growth! What manufacturing-based company does that in this environment!
I was explaining why Tesla stock dropped yesterday. Do you disagree that it was because a lot of stock holders are worried about Tesla's growth rate?*
If you have an alternative explanation for the sell off, we're listening.QuoteLastly, and what you continue to ignore, is that the difference between the production and deliveries is not unsold inventory sitting on dealer lots. It's largely cars that already have buyers, but are in route. It represents approximately two weeks of Tesla production and in two weeks times all these cars will be delivered and in the hand of their owners.
For earnings, it's all about booked revenue.
Legacy manufacturers book full revenue per car when the car leaves the line. That's because dealers buy their cars.
Tesla books full revenue per car when the car is delivered to the end user.
This is why the market/analysts/large holders pay attention to deliveries rather than production for Tesla.
* There's also concern about EPS, too, with the rebates in China and the US.
As a long term investor I don’t care why others sold yesterday. Trying to figure out why others behaved a certain way to justify your investment is a fool’s errand. Wall Street makes a lot of money manipulating retail investor sentiment.
As an investor I don’t really care how analysts count a sale when it comes to measuring demand, which is what we are discussing. The Tesla cars on a cargo ship in the middle of the ocean are more “sold” than the legacy auto cars sitting on dealer lots. Bears like you are spreading a false narrative that cars in transport to owners are somehow not “sold” and therefore demonstrate a demand issue.
You’re laser focused on two-weeks of production stuck in ports or on ships and brushing aside 40% YOY growth. It’s the definition of near-sightedness. And when all these cars are delivered in two weeks time you’ll move on to the latest media driven crisis narrative of the day for Tesla.
@lemonlyman
I also think non-auto revenue is going to become increasingly significant for tesla giong forward.
I did have one question for the group - more of a vocabulary question really. A page or two back, one poster mentioned Musk stating a goal of 50% increase on car deliveries at the outset of 2022, and then said that the company gave "guidance" of 50% increase and missed it. Is stating a future goal giving guidance? I though guidance was a little more formal and concrete - like if a company stated mid-quarter that they were having dificulties obtaining raw materials or were recruiting more new subscribers than expected, or something like that, rather than just a new year's resolution...
So is just stating goals giving guidance? Or how would you define guidance in these terms?
Earnings guidance is defined as the comments management gives about what it expects its company will do in the future. These comments are also known as "forward-looking statements" because they focus on sales or earnings expectations in light of industry and macroeconomic trends. These comments are given so investors can use them to evaluate the company's earnings potential.
What's interesting here to me is the compression of growth from ~38% in 2023 to 23% in 2024 to 18% in 2025. These are rates they're using in models to estimate EPS and return. IMO, Tesla can beat these estimates. In 2021, 1.21 million units as the common estimate for 2022 deliveries. Tesla *missed in 2022 as estimates updated, but 1.31 million delivered beat those 2021 estimates even with Shanghai shutdown in 2022, zero covid policy in China, huge interest rate increases on financing, and potential leader brand damage.
What's interesting here to me is the compression of growth from ~38% in 2023 to 23% in 2024 to 18% in 2025. These are rates they're using in models to estimate EPS and return. IMO, Tesla can beat these estimates. In 2021, 1.21 million units as the common estimate for 2022 deliveries. Tesla *missed in 2022 as estimates updated, but 1.31 million delivered beat those 2021 estimates even with Shanghai shutdown in 2022, zero covid policy in China, huge interest rate increases on financing, and potential leader brand damage.
Do you suspect that the underlined had much influence on deliveries? I can't imagine it had much on the consumer end as Tesla doesn't seem to have problems selling cars, unless it correlates to the price drops in China. Did it influence production/delivery from Tesla's end?
Stating goals is guidance. It's information investors and analysts use to build forecasts. Any material information given by leadership can be used as guidance. They don't seem to really care about being punished in the media for missing guidance though. If China's zero covid policy (with Shanghai shutdown in March 2022) hadn't been as severe, no war, or inflation being transitory like the Fed guided in 2021 was the reality of 2022, I think 50% probably would have happened. But 2022, in general, was a real tough year in many ways.40% growth in a year when the overall industry contracted is still really impressive.
Stating goals is guidance. It's information investors and analysts use to build forecasts. Any material information given by leadership can be used as guidance. They don't seem to really care about being punished in the media for missing guidance though. If China's zero covid policy (with Shanghai shutdown in March 2022) hadn't been as severe, no war, or inflation being transitory like the Fed guided in 2021 was the reality of 2022, I think 50% probably would have happened. But 2022, in general, was a real tough year in many ways.40% growth in a year when the overall industry contracted is still really impressive.
The rather major across-the-board Tesla price cuts in China and nearby countries do concern me.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/06/economy/tesla-china-price-cut-slowdown-intl-hnk/index.html
Piper Sandler estimates the price cuts in China and Australia will cost around $0.60 to 2023 EPS. Not the end of the world for sure, and that can be made up in other ways. It’s massive pressure on BYD and OEM manufacturers who already have thin margins and need volume.
I’m seeing megapack margins are somewhere at 50% based on the material/ battery sizes. If that’s true, at capacity, that’s $2.90 addition to EPS. That’s insane. 50% growth in earnings in 2024 from megapack alone. 20 Forward P/E is too cheap. With a Beta of 2, I can see how forward PE is compressed so far, but only auto is being priced with 40% growth.
Mega caps growing earnings so fast is super rare.
Why is the assumption there is a disconnect right now? What if there was a disconnect before and the stock price has now returned to normal?Piper Sandler estimates the price cuts in China and Australia will cost around $0.60 to 2023 EPS. Not the end of the world for sure, and that can be made up in other ways. It’s massive pressure on BYD and OEM manufacturers who already have thin margins and need volume.
I’m seeing megapack margins are somewhere at 50% based on the material/ battery sizes. If that’s true, at capacity, that’s $2.90 addition to EPS. That’s insane. 50% growth in earnings in 2024 from megapack alone. 20 Forward P/E is too cheap. With a Beta of 2, I can see how forward PE is compressed so far, but only auto is being priced with 40% growth.
Mega caps growing earnings so fast is super rare.
Yep, something has to give, the disconnect is too strong right now to be sustained.
https://twitter.com/piloly/status/1611482719468376080
Why is the assumption there is a disconnect right now? What if there was a disconnect before and the stock price has now returned to normal?Piper Sandler estimates the price cuts in China and Australia will cost around $0.60 to 2023 EPS. Not the end of the world for sure, and that can be made up in other ways. It’s massive pressure on BYD and OEM manufacturers who already have thin margins and need volume.
I’m seeing megapack margins are somewhere at 50% based on the material/ battery sizes. If that’s true, at capacity, that’s $2.90 addition to EPS. That’s insane. 50% growth in earnings in 2024 from megapack alone. 20 Forward P/E is too cheap. With a Beta of 2, I can see how forward PE is compressed so far, but only auto is being priced with 40% growth.
Mega caps growing earnings so fast is super rare.
Yep, something has to give, the disconnect is too strong right now to be sustained.
https://twitter.com/piloly/status/1611482719468376080
Tesla looks great when you compare to Tesla. Look at the rest of the industry though and the 70% drop seems more than rational.Why is the assumption there is a disconnect right now? What if there was a disconnect before and the stock price has now returned to normal?Piper Sandler estimates the price cuts in China and Australia will cost around $0.60 to 2023 EPS. Not the end of the world for sure, and that can be made up in other ways. It’s massive pressure on BYD and OEM manufacturers who already have thin margins and need volume.
I’m seeing megapack margins are somewhere at 50% based on the material/ battery sizes. If that’s true, at capacity, that’s $2.90 addition to EPS. That’s insane. 50% growth in earnings in 2024 from megapack alone. 20 Forward P/E is too cheap. With a Beta of 2, I can see how forward PE is compressed so far, but only auto is being priced with 40% growth.
Mega caps growing earnings so fast is super rare.
Yep, something has to give, the disconnect is too strong right now to be sustained.
https://twitter.com/piloly/status/1611482719468376080
EPS is at a record high. Tesla is a large cap company that just grew deliveries 40% YOY and production 47% YOY. The addressable market is huge. New vehicles are rolling out. New factories are still ramping. And the stock price is down 70% in the past year.
Even if you believed the stock price out ran EPS in the past, I don’t see any rationale for a 70% correction in SP given all the above.
Can you point to another large cap company that was in the midst of 40% YOY growth and record earnings that proceeded to lose 70% of its stock value in a matter of months?
Edited to add: Since the ATH, EPS is up 15% (before considering record Q4 22 earnings) and the SP is down 70%. Tesla is projected to grow another 40-50% in 2023 and increase EPS from current $1.26 to the $4-$5/share range. Please tell me why this stock should be down 70%? I understand some of its macro and the stock was likely overheated at its ATH, but even with that I can’t get to any rationale that justifies a 70% drop.
Tesla looks great when you compare to Tesla. Look at the rest of the industry though and the 70% drop seems more than rational.Why is the assumption there is a disconnect right now? What if there was a disconnect before and the stock price has now returned to normal?Piper Sandler estimates the price cuts in China and Australia will cost around $0.60 to 2023 EPS. Not the end of the world for sure, and that can be made up in other ways. It’s massive pressure on BYD and OEM manufacturers who already have thin margins and need volume.
I’m seeing megapack margins are somewhere at 50% based on the material/ battery sizes. If that’s true, at capacity, that’s $2.90 addition to EPS. That’s insane. 50% growth in earnings in 2024 from megapack alone. 20 Forward P/E is too cheap. With a Beta of 2, I can see how forward PE is compressed so far, but only auto is being priced with 40% growth.
Mega caps growing earnings so fast is super rare.
Yep, something has to give, the disconnect is too strong right now to be sustained.
https://twitter.com/piloly/status/1611482719468376080
EPS is at a record high. Tesla is a large cap company that just grew deliveries 40% YOY and production 47% YOY. The addressable market is huge. New vehicles are rolling out. New factories are still ramping. And the stock price is down 70% in the past year.
Even if you believed the stock price out ran EPS in the past, I don’t see any rationale for a 70% correction in SP given all the above.
Can you point to another large cap company that was in the midst of 40% YOY growth and record earnings that proceeded to lose 70% of its stock value in a matter of months?
Edited to add: Since the ATH, EPS is up 15% (before considering record Q4 22 earnings) and the SP is down 70%. Tesla is projected to grow another 40-50% in 2023 and increase EPS from current $1.26 to the $4-$5/share range. Please tell me why this stock should be down 70%? I understand some of its macro and the stock was likely overheated at its ATH, but even with that I can’t get to any rationale that justifies a 70% drop.
For example, Toyota has an EPS of 13.71 (compared to Tesla's 3.14) and Toyota's market cap is almost half of Tesla after that 70% drop. Will Tesla grow more than Toyota going forward? Sure, but there is still a lot of growth priced in.
I also don't share your optimism for Tesla in the immediate future. The EV space is becoming increasingly competitive and Tesla has aging platforms along with an engineering organization that struggles to get one new product out per year. There will likely be price cuts necessary to keep Tesla's vehicles relevant to buyers which will hit their EPS.
Tesla looks great when you compare to Tesla. Look at the rest of the industry though and the 70% drop seems more than rational.Why is the assumption there is a disconnect right now? What if there was a disconnect before and the stock price has now returned to normal?Piper Sandler estimates the price cuts in China and Australia will cost around $0.60 to 2023 EPS. Not the end of the world for sure, and that can be made up in other ways. It’s massive pressure on BYD and OEM manufacturers who already have thin margins and need volume.
I’m seeing megapack margins are somewhere at 50% based on the material/ battery sizes. If that’s true, at capacity, that’s $2.90 addition to EPS. That’s insane. 50% growth in earnings in 2024 from megapack alone. 20 Forward P/E is too cheap. With a Beta of 2, I can see how forward PE is compressed so far, but only auto is being priced with 40% growth.
Mega caps growing earnings so fast is super rare.
Yep, something has to give, the disconnect is too strong right now to be sustained.
https://twitter.com/piloly/status/1611482719468376080
EPS is at a record high. Tesla is a large cap company that just grew deliveries 40% YOY and production 47% YOY. The addressable market is huge. New vehicles are rolling out. New factories are still ramping. And the stock price is down 70% in the past year.
Even if you believed the stock price out ran EPS in the past, I don’t see any rationale for a 70% correction in SP given all the above.
Can you point to another large cap company that was in the midst of 40% YOY growth and record earnings that proceeded to lose 70% of its stock value in a matter of months?
Edited to add: Since the ATH, EPS is up 15% (before considering record Q4 22 earnings) and the SP is down 70%. Tesla is projected to grow another 40-50% in 2023 and increase EPS from current $1.26 to the $4-$5/share range. Please tell me why this stock should be down 70%? I understand some of its macro and the stock was likely overheated at its ATH, but even with that I can’t get to any rationale that justifies a 70% drop.
For example, Toyota has an EPS of 13.71 (compared to Tesla's 3.14) and Toyota's market cap is almost half of Tesla after that 70% drop. Will Tesla grow more than Toyota going forward? Sure, but there is still a lot of growth priced in.
I also don't share your optimism for Tesla in the immediate future. The EV space is becoming increasingly competitive and Tesla has aging platforms along with an engineering organization that struggles to get one new product out per year. There will likely be price cuts necessary to keep Tesla's vehicles relevant to buyers which will hit their EPS.
Timely
https://fallacyalarm.substack.com/p/what-is-a-fair-pe-ratio-for-tesla?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
insurance as growing profit centers on top of automotive that I’m aware.
Timely
https://fallacyalarm.substack.com/p/what-is-a-fair-pe-ratio-for-tesla?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
Timely
https://fallacyalarm.substack.com/p/what-is-a-fair-pe-ratio-for-tesla?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
EPS isn’t a like for like metric because every company has a different amount of outstanding shares.
This was a really interesting analysis and good read! However, now that Tesla is cutting prices around the globe (roughly 20% for a Model Y here in Norway) I am wondering what that means for this investment thesis? Obviously, it will hurt margins significantly but with the supply chain normalizing and the price cuts spurring demand there are also some tailwinds... Has anyone put thought into what this might mean for the stock in the short-, medium-, and long term?
EPS isn’t a like for like metric because every company has a different amount of outstanding shares.
EPS = Earnings per share
A Tesla Model Y long range that cost $66k yesterday and was tax credit ineligible costs $53k today making it tax credit eligible. The actual take home price for most buyers will be only $46.5k.Was it one month ago or two months ago when I said this would happen in response to competition, and was corrected by multiple people who explained that price cuts would never happen because Tesla products are so different and because demand is a bottomless pit?
That's effectively 30% price drop overnight. Should be good for adoption and demand. Less good for Tesla's EPS in the short-to-medium term.
Was it one month ago or two months ago when I said this would happen in response to competition, and was corrected by multiple people who explained that price cuts would never happen because Tesla products are so different and because demand is a bottomless pit?
Tesla without margins is like Meta without growth.
Tesla has been earning a 28% net margin from their customers, eight times what market leader Toyota pulls in. Their ability to grow organically (e.g. set up new factories) has been fueled by quickly-growing operating earnings, but it all comes back to their customers being willing to pay several thousand dollars extra per car. Why are customers willing to pay Tesla roughly $9,500 in margin per car? An economist might say because Tesla has monopoly power in the BEV market (71% market share for BEVs in 2021, down to 65% in 2022). If you wanted a BEV in the past few years, it was Tesla or the downmarket Leaf / Bolt, which were themselves fairly expensive and had shorter range. Yes, there were some startups like Fisker also selling upmarket BEVs, but they weren't widely available.
There's also the tailwind from Tesla selling billions of dollars worth of pollution credits over the past few years. That market is destined to dry up as more and more manufacturers make their own BEVs.
The question is whether Tesla will continue to grow the top line quickly while simultaneously maintaining 8X industry margins in a near future when customers have many possible choices, such as a $34k Chevy Equinox BEV or Hyundai Kona BEV. An economist might say these new market entrants will break the monopolist's pricing power and force margins toward equilibrium.
Of course, the Tesla brand may retain some additional value to certain customers as a status symbol, so their margins may never get as low as a Chevy or Kia, but there are other luxury nameplates like Cadillac, Lexus, or Infinity that should be able to do the same thing. It will soon be fair to ask why Tesla is so special that their cars are worth thousands of dollars more than equivalent offerings from their competitors.
4. Tesla will reduce price and cost while increasing other services. Margins will not compress. Top line will grow with Cybertruck, Semi, FSD sales, Supercharger growth, and Energy Storage growth.
I wonder if the massive hit on sales that non Tesla manufacturersmightwill most likely encounter due to Tesla's price cuts has been considered? For example, A consumer could go either way when considering a $65,000 Ford Mustang Mach E or a $65,000 Tesla Model Y. But how many of those buyers would now buy a $65k Mach E over a $45k MY that has longer range, faster charging and drastically better charging network......
Or for that matter, who will buy a $50K+ Ioniq 5 or EV-6 with significantly less range. There's really nothing competitive at this point, and legacy makers don't have the margin to drop prices. I see this as Tesla potentially running away from the rest of the industry so drastically that I don't see how it won't hurt them badly.
Ford and GM stock took a big hit when Tesla announced the price drops.
That's the scenario a lot of us were talking about earlier - competition arrives and drives margins down for everyone. I'm not investing in Ford or Chevy either!
-W
I wonder if the massive hit on sales that non Tesla manufacturersmightwill most likely encounter due to Tesla's price cuts has been considered? For example, A consumer could go either way when considering a $65,000 Ford Mustang Mach E or a $65,000 Tesla Model Y. But how many of those buyers would now buy a $65k Mach E over a $45k MY that has longer range, faster charging and drastically better charging network......
Or for that matter, who will buy a $50K+ Ioniq 5 or EV-6 with significantly less range. There's really nothing competitive at this point, and legacy makers don't have the margin to drop prices. I see this as Tesla potentially running away from the rest of the industry so drastically that I don't see how it won't hurt them badly.
Ford and GM stock took a big hit when Tesla announced the price drops.
My memory is a bit fuzzy on exact price points, as I last looked at them about 6 months ago. This is based on a general memory, but not a detailed comparison.
I think the EV6 and Ioniq 5 are still very compelling at their current prices. Their higher trims are comparable to the Model Y, and they have a better charging speed at the right charging stations. And the higher trims are priced right around the new Model Y price. There's plenty of customers that will compare these options and choose Tesla or non-Tesla for their own individual reasons.
The Mach-E is now way over-priced. I think Ford will need to drop the price significantly to stay competitive. Or at least start making more of the lower-trim versions. They were mostly only making the Premium and GT trims when I last looked for inventory.
I think 2023 will be the year the market for EV CUV's at $50K+ becomes nearly fully saturated in the US. Not that there will be zero growth thereafter, but we might get to the point of seeing inventory on lots by the end of the year. At least if gas prices stay low.
I think this is great news for the EV market as a whole, but not great news for Tesla as an investment.
I think the Ioniq 5 and EV6 base model RWD will be competitive on price point and range i.e. $45k, 300 mile which is actually a little better than Tesla base model. However, Tesla will get some tax rebate and still have the drastically better charge network. But ya, probably close enough, and somewhat competitive. However, moving up to the AWD of those cars drops range to 260 vs 330-350 for Tesla, and $50k+ with no rebate. The charging *speed* seems really good on those cars, but Tesla still replenishes *range* faster than any car made since they are so efficient, whereas Kia, Hyundai, Ford are more barn door/brute force approach. Tesla replenishes range nearly twice as fast as Mach E. Mach E achieves its lower range with a *massive* battery, which in turn makes charge times slower.
Nah, competition is what it is. Not every EV maker will survive but plenty of ones (just like Tesla) will lose money for a few years before they get their costs/process down to where they're making money.
Consumers win, ain't capitalism great?
-W
Nah, competition is what it is. Not every EV maker will survive but plenty of ones (just like Tesla) will lose money for a few years before they get their costs/process down to where they're making money.
Consumers win, ain't capitalism great?
-W
Wait, Tesla is losing money? Aren't they the most profitable car company in the world(per car) by a huge margin?
Nah, competition is what it is. Not every EV maker will survive but plenty of ones (just like Tesla) will lose money for a few years before they get their costs/process down to where they're making money.
Consumers win, ain't capitalism great?
-W
Wait, Tesla is losing money? Aren't they the most profitable car company in the world(per car) by a huge margin?
Nope.
Toyota is the most profitable - 19.1 billion in profit in 2022.
Tesla is the most highly valued car company by stock price. The come in around 9th as far as profits at 3.3 billion in 2022, behind Peugeot, SAIC motors, Volvo, Honda, BMW, GM, Volkswagen and Toyota.
Wait, Tesla is losing money? Aren't they the most profitable car company in the world(per car) by a huge margin?
Nah, competition is what it is. Not every EV maker will survive but plenty of ones (just like Tesla) will lose money for a few years before they get their costs/process down to where they're making money.
Consumers win, ain't capitalism great?
-W
Wait, Tesla is losing money? Aren't they the most profitable car company in the world(per car) by a huge margin?
Nope.
Toyota is the most profitable - 19.1 billion in profit in 2022.
Tesla is the most highly valued car company by stock price. The come in around 9th as far as profits at 3.3 billion in 2022, behind Peugeot, SAIC motors, Volvo, Honda, BMW, GM, Volkswagen and Toyota.
@waltworks that makes more sense! I agree, it's gonna be tough for some of the legacy makers to transition to EV. What the heck will they do with the millions(billions?) of ICE infrastructure???
Nah, competition is what it is. Not every EV maker will survive but plenty of ones (just like Tesla) will lose money for a few years before they get their costs/process down to where they're making money.
Consumers win, ain't capitalism great?
-W
Wait, Tesla is losing money? Aren't they the most profitable car company in the world(per car) by a huge margin?
Nope.
Toyota is the most profitable - 19.1 billion in profit in 2022.
Tesla is the most highly valued car company by stock price. The come in around 9th as far as profits at 3.3 billion in 2022, behind Peugeot, SAIC motors, Volvo, Honda, BMW, GM, Volkswagen and Toyota.
Tesla made that much just in 3q.
Just another example of how the typical Tesla bear has no clue what they are talking about.
Was it one month ago or two months ago when I said this would happen in response to competition, and was corrected by multiple people who explained that price cuts would never happen because Tesla products are so different and because demand is a bottomless pit?Neither. It's a strawman you created.
https://doctorow.medium.com/the-true-genius-of-tech-leaders-46d6e3439989 (https://doctorow.medium.com/the-true-genius-of-tech-leaders-46d6e3439989)
Based on this perspective, for Tesla to continue dominating the EV market they'd need to quickly acquire and then employ or destroy new technologies to prevent others from using them, or use capital markets to underprice their competitors. Neither seems particularly plausible in the car construction heavy industry,
I have no clue about how factories construct car frames because I am not an engineer in that niche. Similarly, I have no information about what each factory in the US, Europe, China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Mexico, etc. is doing, or their relative cost advantages compared to each other. All you need to know is that it's clear business is less of a predictable meritocracy than most of us believe. The best product does not always succeed, the best strategies are often sunk by luck, the hardest working people are not always the most competent and vice versa.https://doctorow.medium.com/the-true-genius-of-tech-leaders-46d6e3439989 (https://doctorow.medium.com/the-true-genius-of-tech-leaders-46d6e3439989)
Based on this perspective, for Tesla to continue dominating the EV market they'd need to quickly acquire and then employ or destroy new technologies to prevent others from using them, or use capital markets to underprice their competitors. Neither seems particularly plausible in the car construction heavy industry,
That's an interesting interpretation of the article. It doesn't strike me as particularly accurate.
Regarding the last bit: Remind me again which other car manufacturer is using frame castings as large as Tesla does? Half the frame in each casting.
https://doctorow.medium.com/the-true-genius-of-tech-leaders-46d6e3439989 (https://doctorow.medium.com/the-true-genius-of-tech-leaders-46d6e3439989)
Based on this perspective, for Tesla to continue dominating the EV market they'd need to quickly acquire and then employ or destroy new technologies to prevent others from using them, or use capital markets to underprice their competitors. Neither seems particularly plausible in the car construction heavy industry, but maybe Tesla's price cuts (which seem to be their entire margin) suggest they are willing to sacrifice profits in order to undercut competitors. Except they still aren't undercutting competitors.
https://doctorow.medium.com/the-true-genius-of-tech-leaders-46d6e3439989 (https://doctorow.medium.com/the-true-genius-of-tech-leaders-46d6e3439989)
Based on this perspective, for Tesla to continue dominating the EV market they'd need to quickly acquire and then employ or destroy new technologies to prevent others from using them, or use capital markets to underprice their competitors. Neither seems particularly plausible in the car construction heavy industry, but maybe Tesla's price cuts (which seem to be their entire margin) suggest they are willing to sacrifice profits in order to undercut competitors. Except they still aren't undercutting competitors.
What is your math on the cuts being their entire margin?
https://doctorow.medium.com/the-true-genius-of-tech-leaders-46d6e3439989 (https://doctorow.medium.com/the-true-genius-of-tech-leaders-46d6e3439989)
Based on this perspective, for Tesla to continue dominating the EV market they'd need to quickly acquire and then employ or destroy new technologies to prevent others from using them, or use capital markets to underprice their competitors. Neither seems particularly plausible in the car construction heavy industry, but maybe Tesla's price cuts (which seem to be their entire margin) suggest they are willing to sacrifice profits in order to undercut competitors. Except they still aren't undercutting competitors.
What is your math on the cuts being their entire margin?
In the first 9 months of 2022, Tesla earned ~$9bn in net income on ~900k deliveries. Not sure which margin is being referenced, but they earned a net profit of about $10k per car delivered.
Now, how much did they just slash prices across their lineup?
https://tesladata.mattjung.net/total-new-inventory/
Also, there does not appear to have been a huge wave of demand a week after these cuts. If you go to their website in the U.S., you can get almost any model (any model except the dual motor Model X, to be specific) with an estimated delivery date before April. This is despite Tesla's best efforts to get consumers to buy before March 31st due to the unclear nature of the IRA tax credit after that date.
Terminal demand in the 2nd half of 2022 was ~180k/quarter at the old prices. They *had* to cut prices because supply was vastly outpacing demand. Econ 101 stuff. So much for that "unlimited demand" the most demented bulls liked to tout.
It's still very impressive what they've done - starting an EV company from scratch and getting to marginally profitable in ~15 years, even if some of their financial statements have some serious question marks if you dig into them. That doesn't mean they should be valued as a $1 trillion company.
2023 will be interesting, for sure. The company is trying to scale production to, what, 2m (or more) units for the year, but they appear to have a demand issue getting there. The CEO has said they'll go flat to even negative margins if they have to. Their product offering is stale, save for the Cybertruck if they ever figure out how to manufacture it. Supposedly that starts later this year but I have a feeling it won't go smoothly. Then, of course, there's the question of where these 1m robotaxis are that were supposed to be here in 2020 "for sure."
With the price cuts, it's certainly possible that revenues and EPS go negative QoQ when they report Q1 results. For a 50% growth company, I'll be curious to see how the market reacts.
What is your math on the cuts being their entire margin?
In the first 9 months of 2022, Tesla earned ~$9bn in net income on ~900k deliveries. Not sure which margin is being referenced, but they earned a net profit of about $10k per car delivered.
Now, how much did they just slash prices across their lineup?
https://tesladata.mattjung.net/total-new-inventory/
Terminal demand in the 2nd half of 2022 was ~180k/quarter at the old prices. They *had* to cut prices because supply was vastly outpacing demand. Econ 101 stuff. So much for that "unlimited demand" the most demented bulls liked to tout.
@ColoradoTribe It was a good interview. I watched it.What is your math on the cuts being their entire margin?
In the first 9 months of 2022, Tesla earned ~$9bn in net income on ~900k deliveries. Not sure which margin is being referenced, but they earned a net profit of about $10k per car delivered.
Now, how much did they just slash prices across their lineup?
https://tesladata.mattjung.net/total-new-inventory/
I like the inventory tracker.
I think you may be missing some components in that calculation. It assumes COGS/unit is static no matter the volume and operating costs increase proportionally with volume. That doesn't happen.
We know they delivered 405,278 units in Q4. We also know Berlin and Texas factories started production in Q2 of 2022 inflating COGS in the last few quarters. After the price cuts, analysts revised their down their estimates to $4.54 EPS with 1.855m deliveries in 2023. That's $8,443 net profit per car. 15% decline compared to before the price cuts.Terminal demand in the 2nd half of 2022 was ~180k/quarter at the old prices. They *had* to cut prices because supply was vastly outpacing demand. Econ 101 stuff. So much for that "unlimited demand" the most demented bulls liked to tout.
Terminal demand 180,000 cars/quarter? I don't understand that number. Can you elaborate?
@ColoradoTribe It was a good interview. I watched it.What is your math on the cuts being their entire margin?
In the first 9 months of 2022, Tesla earned ~$9bn in net income on ~900k deliveries. Not sure which margin is being referenced, but they earned a net profit of about $10k per car delivered.
Now, how much did they just slash prices across their lineup?
https://tesladata.mattjung.net/total-new-inventory/
I like the inventory tracker.
I think you may be missing some components in that calculation. It assumes COGS/unit is static no matter the volume and operating costs increase proportionally with volume. That doesn't happen.
We know they delivered 405,278 units in Q4. We also know Berlin and Texas factories started production in Q2 of 2022 inflating COGS in the last few quarters. After the price cuts, analysts revised their down their estimates to $4.54 EPS with 1.855m deliveries in 2023. That's $8,443 net profit per car. 15% decline compared to before the price cuts.Terminal demand in the 2nd half of 2022 was ~180k/quarter at the old prices. They *had* to cut prices because supply was vastly outpacing demand. Econ 101 stuff. So much for that "unlimited demand" the most demented bulls liked to tout.
Terminal demand 180,000 cars/quarter? I don't understand that number. Can you elaborate?
a) not sure analyst estimates are the best way to forecast net profit per vehicle. '23 could be a wild year and a lot can change. sure, COGS/unit isn't static, but it didn't drop $4-5k overnight like some bulls wants to believe.
b) https://twitter.com/TroyTeslike/status/1614991977367625729
This guy is fairly accurate with his data. It shows Tesla's global backlog declining by ~400k in the 2nd half of 2022. Tesla sold ~750k units in the 2nd half of the year (I'm rounding up), and up to 400k of those were placed before the 2nd half of the year. That means just 350k orders were placed from June-December. Of course, you could slap on a 10% cancellation rate of pre-existing orders and say they only sold 360k from their backlog and that'd push orders up to 390k in the 2nd half of the year. So somewhere on the order of 175k-190k quarterly order rate.
And personally, I think that's about right for a niche, BMW-type of automaker that sells mostly above the $50k price point and basically sells just 1.5 models (the Y which is mostly borrowed from the 3 and the 3...S/X are just super niche products without much more than 25k/quarter demand rate combined). Without going down market and/or expanding their product offering, that seems right to me. Now, of course, their goal is rapid growth so they'll have to drop prices to expand their TAM and/or start offering more than one new model every 3 years.
@ColoradoTribe It was a good interview. I watched it.What is your math on the cuts being their entire margin?
In the first 9 months of 2022, Tesla earned ~$9bn in net income on ~900k deliveries. Not sure which margin is being referenced, but they earned a net profit of about $10k per car delivered.
Now, how much did they just slash prices across their lineup?
https://tesladata.mattjung.net/total-new-inventory/
I like the inventory tracker.
I think you may be missing some components in that calculation. It assumes COGS/unit is static no matter the volume and operating costs increase proportionally with volume. That doesn't happen.
We know they delivered 405,278 units in Q4. We also know Berlin and Texas factories started production in Q2 of 2022 inflating COGS in the last few quarters. After the price cuts, analysts revised their down their estimates to $4.54 EPS with 1.855m deliveries in 2023. That's $8,443 net profit per car. 15% decline compared to before the price cuts.Terminal demand in the 2nd half of 2022 was ~180k/quarter at the old prices. They *had* to cut prices because supply was vastly outpacing demand. Econ 101 stuff. So much for that "unlimited demand" the most demented bulls liked to tout.
Terminal demand 180,000 cars/quarter? I don't understand that number. Can you elaborate?
a) not sure analyst estimates are the best way to forecast net profit per vehicle. '23 could be a wild year and a lot can change. sure, COGS/unit isn't static, but it didn't drop $4-5k overnight like some bulls wants to believe.
b) https://twitter.com/TroyTeslike/status/1614991977367625729
This guy is fairly accurate with his data. It shows Tesla's global backlog declining by ~400k in the 2nd half of 2022. Tesla sold ~750k units in the 2nd half of the year (I'm rounding up), and up to 400k of those were placed before the 2nd half of the year. That means just 350k orders were placed from June-December. Of course, you could slap on a 10% cancellation rate of pre-existing orders and say they only sold 360k from their backlog and that'd push orders up to 390k in the 2nd half of the year. So somewhere on the order of 175k-190k quarterly order rate.
And personally, I think that's about right for a niche, BMW-type of automaker that sells mostly above the $50k price point and basically sells just 1.5 models (the Y which is mostly borrowed from the 3 and the 3...S/X are just super niche products without much more than 25k/quarter demand rate combined). Without going down market and/or expanding their product offering, that seems right to me. Now, of course, their goal is rapid growth so they'll have to drop prices to expand their TAM and/or start offering more than one new model every 3 years.
I don’t use analysts for forecasts. I make my own, but I mention analysts because no one cares what an anonymous person on a forum forecasts. I do benchmark against them tho. I don’t believe COGS dropped $4-5k overnight. Q3 COGS were $39k months ago and we’ll get Q4 with 60,000 incremental units delivered over Q3. Both Berlin and Texas ramped to 3-5k per week. No point in throwing out a number when a new data point on cost is less than a week away, but I think it’ll be less than $39k.
I follow Troy and subscribe to his Patreon. So you’re saying ~190,000 as the order rate per quarter going forward now that the backlog is gone? 760,000 annual sales in 2023. If you think he’s fairly accurate, you might be surprised to know he would highly disagree with that assessment.
https://doctorow.medium.com/the-true-genius-of-tech-leaders-46d6e3439989 (https://doctorow.medium.com/the-true-genius-of-tech-leaders-46d6e3439989)
Based on this perspective, for Tesla to continue dominating the EV market they'd need to quickly acquire and then employ or destroy new technologies to prevent others from using them, or use capital markets to underprice their competitors. Neither seems particularly plausible in the car construction heavy industry, but maybe Tesla's price cuts (which seem to be their entire margin) suggest they are willing to sacrifice profits in order to undercut competitors. Except they still aren't undercutting competitors.
What is your math on the cuts being their entire margin?
In the first 9 months of 2022, Tesla earned ~$9bn in net income on ~900k deliveries. Not sure which margin is being referenced, but they earned a net profit of about $10k per car delivered.
Now, how much did they just slash prices across their lineup?
https://tesladata.mattjung.net/total-new-inventory/
Also, there does not appear to have been a huge wave of demand a week after these cuts. If you go to their website in the U.S., you can get almost any model (any model except the dual motor Model X, to be specific) with an estimated delivery date before April. This is despite Tesla's best efforts to get consumers to buy before March 31st due to the unclear nature of the IRA tax credit after that date.
Terminal demand in the 2nd half of 2022 was ~180k/quarter at the old prices. They *had* to cut prices because supply was vastly outpacing demand. Econ 101 stuff. So much for that "unlimited demand" the most demented bulls liked to tout.
It's still very impressive what they've done - starting an EV company from scratch and getting to marginally profitable in ~15 years, even if some of their financial statements have some serious question marks if you dig into them. That doesn't mean they should be valued as a $1 trillion company.
2023 will be interesting, for sure. The company is trying to scale production to, what, 2m (or more) units for the year, but they appear to have a demand issue getting there. The CEO has said they'll go flat to even negative margins if they have to. Their product offering is stale, save for the Cybertruck if they ever figure out how to manufacture it. Supposedly that starts later this year but I have a feeling it won't go smoothly. Then, of course, there's the question of where these 1m robotaxis are that were supposed to be here in 2020 "for sure."
With the price cuts, it's certainly possible that revenues and EPS go negative QoQ when they report Q1 results. For a 50% growth company, I'll be curious to see how the market reacts.
The automotive teardown expert interviewed in the video I posted above estimates Tesla margins (across all variants) to be at 20% after the price cuts. No one outside of Tesla is in a better position to assess Tesla’s COGS currently. While the sale price is transparent, the COGS are constantly changing, especially as the new factories ramp. Whereas, Tesla can drop 10% in margin and still be profitable, the competition has yet to turn a profit on their EVs and lowering prices would increase losses (not profit) for them. Tesla has signaled that they are willing to sacrifice margin (short term profit) for market share. I highly recommend watching the interview.
Tesla excludes R&D from its COGS, unlike every other auto maker. Something you have to aware of when comparing margin % to competitors. If Tesla did include R&D in its COGS (as is the industry standard) then it'd be middle of the pack in terms of margin % rather than "industry leading."
Tesla excludes R&D from its COGS, unlike every other auto maker. Something you have to aware of when comparing margin % to competitors. If Tesla did include R&D in its COGS (as is the industry standard) then it'd be middle of the pack in terms of margin % rather than "industry leading."
I don't think that's true. For Q3, the Gross Margin would be 23% excluding energy credits with R&D included in COGS which would still be industry leading. And it wouldn't change Net Margin which is also industry leading. They elect to put R&D into operating costs because they spend R&D on software, energy, and charging (and other moonshots) in addition to auto. They're synergistic, but the R&D isn't all auto. Those are historical margins and are subject to change in the future with the price cuts. But I did just watch this video this morning on forward margins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4ZcxeRq2Io (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4ZcxeRq2Io)
Well that was an unexpected. At current prices, their single unit costs imply (when factories are ramped) ~25% GM before software, upgrades and production tax credits. Not back of the napkin math; Every bolt in the car is priced in their research.
Jim Cramer is bullish on TSLA.
So there we have it folks, I consider the debate over... Tesla bears have won! Let the selloff begin. :)
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-tsla-sleeping-giant-jim-cramer/
NBC: Tesla video promoting self-driving was staged, engineer testifies (https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/tesla-video-promoting-self-driving-was-staged-engineer-testifies-rcna66150)
Well if we're going to talk about oracles.....
Cathy Woods recently said expected tesla up 5 fold in 5 years...while that sounds great - given that they've been down 70% from ATH, that would really only even out to average performance since the ATH in 5 years.
So leaves me scratching my head! was she deliberately trying to sounds super bullish while predicting average performance?
Well if we're going to talk about oracles.....
Cathy Woods recently said expected tesla up 5 fold in 5 years...while that sounds great - given that they've been down 70% from ATH, that would really only even out to average performance since the ATH in 5 years.
So leaves me scratching my head! was she deliberately trying to sounds super bullish while predicting average performance?
Anytime I hear about someone reading / hearing anything Cathy says leaves me scratching my head.
So your "neither seems particularly plausible" claim is based on... your massive ignorance of the topic at hand?I have no clue about how factories construct car frames because I am not an engineer in that niche. Similarly, I have no information about what each factory in the US, Europe, China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Mexico, etc. is doing, or their relative cost advantages compared to each other. All you need to know is that it's clear business is less of a predictable meritocracy than most of us believe. The best product does not always succeed, the best strategies are often sunk by luck, the hardest working people are not always the most competent and vice versa.https://doctorow.medium.com/the-true-genius-of-tech-leaders-46d6e3439989 (https://doctorow.medium.com/the-true-genius-of-tech-leaders-46d6e3439989)
Based on this perspective, for Tesla to continue dominating the EV market they'd need to quickly acquire and then employ or destroy new technologies to prevent others from using them, or use capital markets to underprice their competitors. Neither seems particularly plausible in the car construction heavy industry,
That's an interesting interpretation of the article. It doesn't strike me as particularly accurate.
Regarding the last bit: Remind me again which other car manufacturer is using frame castings as large as Tesla does? Half the frame in each casting.
So are you an engineer on a Tesla factory line or do you work in Tesla's finance department? Tell me more about why casting an entire car body at once is more economical than doing it in sections. What do they do with the entire car body when it gets a ding or a defect - scrap the whole thing? Does the process pass a cost on to consumers through higher costs of repairs? How does the undercoating process work, without risking getting material on the to-be painted surfaces? Is the rigidity of this carefully-tuned process why Tesla isn't introducing new models very quickly (to avoid "manufacturing hell"?)?So your "neither seems particularly plausible" claim is based on... your massive ignorance of the topic at hand?I have no clue about how factories construct car frames because I am not an engineer in that niche. Similarly, I have no information about what each factory in the US, Europe, China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Mexico, etc. is doing, or their relative cost advantages compared to each other. All you need to know is that it's clear business is less of a predictable meritocracy than most of us believe. The best product does not always succeed, the best strategies are often sunk by luck, the hardest working people are not always the most competent and vice versa.https://doctorow.medium.com/the-true-genius-of-tech-leaders-46d6e3439989 (https://doctorow.medium.com/the-true-genius-of-tech-leaders-46d6e3439989)
Based on this perspective, for Tesla to continue dominating the EV market they'd need to quickly acquire and then employ or destroy new technologies to prevent others from using them, or use capital markets to underprice their competitors. Neither seems particularly plausible in the car construction heavy industry,
That's an interesting interpretation of the article. It doesn't strike me as particularly accurate.
Regarding the last bit: Remind me again which other car manufacturer is using frame castings as large as Tesla does? Half the frame in each casting.
Got it.
So are you an engineer on a Tesla factory line or do you work in Tesla's finance department? Tell me more about why casting an entire car body at once is more economical than doing it in sections. What do they do with the entire car body when it gets a ding or a defect - scrap the whole thing? Does the process pass a cost on to consumers through higher costs of repairs? How does the undercoating process work, without risking getting material on the to-be painted surfaces? Is the rigidity of this carefully-tuned process why Tesla isn't introducing new models very quickly (to avoid "manufacturing hell"?)?So your "neither seems particularly plausible" claim is based on... your massive ignorance of the topic at hand?I have no clue about how factories construct car frames because I am not an engineer in that niche. Similarly, I have no information about what each factory in the US, Europe, China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Mexico, etc. is doing, or their relative cost advantages compared to each other. All you need to know is that it's clear business is less of a predictable meritocracy than most of us believe. The best product does not always succeed, the best strategies are often sunk by luck, the hardest working people are not always the most competent and vice versa.https://doctorow.medium.com/the-true-genius-of-tech-leaders-46d6e3439989 (https://doctorow.medium.com/the-true-genius-of-tech-leaders-46d6e3439989)
Based on this perspective, for Tesla to continue dominating the EV market they'd need to quickly acquire and then employ or destroy new technologies to prevent others from using them, or use capital markets to underprice their competitors. Neither seems particularly plausible in the car construction heavy industry,
That's an interesting interpretation of the article. It doesn't strike me as particularly accurate.
Regarding the last bit: Remind me again which other car manufacturer is using frame castings as large as Tesla does? Half the frame in each casting.
Got it.
And how in 100+ years of car manufacturing history, across dozens of brands and hundreds of factories, is Tesla the only company that could ever pull off this apparently revolutionary process? What'll they think of next, stainless steel car bodies? :)
So are you an engineer on a Tesla factory line or do you work in Tesla's finance department? Tell me more about why casting an entire car body at once is more economical than doing it in sections. What do they do with the entire car body when it gets a ding or a defect - scrap the whole thing? Does the process pass a cost on to consumers through higher costs of repairs? How does the undercoating process work, without risking getting material on the to-be painted surfaces? Is the rigidity of this carefully-tuned process why Tesla isn't introducing new models very quickly (to avoid "manufacturing hell"?)?
And how in 100+ years of car manufacturing history, across dozens of brands and hundreds of factories, is Tesla the only company that could ever pull off this apparently revolutionary process? What'll they think of next, stainless steel car bodies? :)
Also, it's just the Model Y AFAIK, none of the other models. Maybe that's cool, but I don't know how it is a huge competitive advantage. It isn't the whole body either: https://electrek.co/2021/10/05/tesla-building-model-y-bodies-single-front-rear-castings-manufacturing-first/
Audi also has cool unibody/frame technology but no one bids their stock up to nosebleed heights: https://www.audi-technology-portal.de/en/body/aluminium-bodies/audi-spaceframe-en
So are you an engineer on a Tesla factory line or do you work in Tesla's finance department? Tell me more about why casting an entire car body at once is more economical than doing it in sections. What do they do with the entire car body when it gets a ding or a defect - scrap the whole thing? Does the process pass a cost on to consumers through higher costs of repairs? How does the undercoating process work, without risking getting material on the to-be painted surfaces? Is the rigidity of this carefully-tuned process why Tesla isn't introducing new models very quickly (to avoid "manufacturing hell"?)?
And how in 100+ years of car manufacturing history, across dozens of brands and hundreds of factories, is Tesla the only company that could ever pull off this apparently revolutionary process? What'll they think of next, stainless steel car bodies? :)
You didn't watch this last time. And again, show lack any reasonable effort to do any research before you speak.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNWYk4DdT_E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNWYk4DdT_E)
Also, it's just the Model Y AFAIK, none of the other models. Maybe that's cool, but I don't know how it is a huge competitive advantage. It isn't the whole body either: https://electrek.co/2021/10/05/tesla-building-model-y-bodies-single-front-rear-castings-manufacturing-first/
Audi also has cool unibody/frame technology but no one bids their stock up to nosebleed heights: https://www.audi-technology-portal.de/en/body/aluminium-bodies/audi-spaceframe-en
Audi never got it to scale. 550,000 since 1994?...One of the issues Tesla has solved with their alloys is they don't require a heat treat after casting which reduces cost and errors if the cast warps before treating. Criticism is fair for Tesla not innovating everything. They don't, but one of the things other automakers can't replicate is the shared information on metallurgy skunkworks that Tesla and SpaceX collaborate on. As far as I'm aware, Audi and Lockheed Martin don't collaborate on alloys.
So are you an engineer on a Tesla factory line or do you work in Tesla's finance department? Tell me more about why casting an entire car body at once is more economical than doing it in sections. What do they do with the entire car body when it gets a ding or a defect - scrap the whole thing? Does the process pass a cost on to consumers through higher costs of repairs? How does the undercoating process work, without risking getting material on the to-be painted surfaces? Is the rigidity of this carefully-tuned process why Tesla isn't introducing new models very quickly (to avoid "manufacturing hell"?)?
And how in 100+ years of car manufacturing history, across dozens of brands and hundreds of factories, is Tesla the only company that could ever pull off this apparently revolutionary process? What'll they think of next, stainless steel car bodies? :)
You didn't watch this last time. And again, show lack any reasonable effort to do any research before you speak.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNWYk4DdT_E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNWYk4DdT_E)
Also, it's just the Model Y AFAIK, none of the other models. Maybe that's cool, but I don't know how it is a huge competitive advantage. It isn't the whole body either: https://electrek.co/2021/10/05/tesla-building-model-y-bodies-single-front-rear-castings-manufacturing-first/
Audi also has cool unibody/frame technology but no one bids their stock up to nosebleed heights: https://www.audi-technology-portal.de/en/body/aluminium-bodies/audi-spaceframe-en
Audi never got it to scale. 550,000 since 1994?...One of the issues Tesla has solved with their alloys is they don't require a heat treat after casting which reduces cost and errors if the cast warps before treating. Criticism is fair for Tesla not innovating everything. They don't, but one of the things other automakers can't replicate is the shared information on metallurgy skunkworks that Tesla and SpaceX collaborate on. As far as I'm aware, Audi and Lockheed Martin don't collaborate on alloys.
I watched the video, not impressed. Basically a dude mansplaining using a lot of superlatives and very little actual data. Even his evolution of the horse analogy didn't make sense.
Looking at the rear end of the single cast, it's obvious that repairs will be very expensive (https://insideevs.com/news/560925/tesla-modely-expensive-repair-advice/) compared to vehicles where the rear quarter panel can be replaced.
ETA: To be clear, the single cast body may be very impressive, I just don't think the video is convincing. I'm skeptical by nature (though not cynical), show me the numbers on how much this saves, improves margins, scaling, etc. What's the hard data showing this is a competitive advantage, and why should anyone believe that other automakers can't easily replicate the process (looks like Volvo is already investing in megacasting). And again, what's the repairability story -- I don't mean the underlying frame which always results in a total loss if damaged -- but rather aesthetic body panels.
So are you an engineer on a Tesla factory line or do you work in Tesla's finance department? Tell me more about why casting an entire car body at once is more economical than doing it in sections. What do they do with the entire car body when it gets a ding or a defect - scrap the whole thing? Does the process pass a cost on to consumers through higher costs of repairs? How does the undercoating process work, without risking getting material on the to-be painted surfaces? Is the rigidity of this carefully-tuned process why Tesla isn't introducing new models very quickly (to avoid "manufacturing hell"?)?
And how in 100+ years of car manufacturing history, across dozens of brands and hundreds of factories, is Tesla the only company that could ever pull off this apparently revolutionary process? What'll they think of next, stainless steel car bodies? :)
You didn't watch this last time. And again, show lack any reasonable effort to do any research before you speak.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNWYk4DdT_E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNWYk4DdT_E)
Also, it's just the Model Y AFAIK, none of the other models. Maybe that's cool, but I don't know how it is a huge competitive advantage. It isn't the whole body either: https://electrek.co/2021/10/05/tesla-building-model-y-bodies-single-front-rear-castings-manufacturing-first/
Audi also has cool unibody/frame technology but no one bids their stock up to nosebleed heights: https://www.audi-technology-portal.de/en/body/aluminium-bodies/audi-spaceframe-en
Audi never got it to scale. 550,000 since 1994?...One of the issues Tesla has solved with their alloys is they don't require a heat treat after casting which reduces cost and errors if the cast warps before treating. Criticism is fair for Tesla not innovating everything. They don't, but one of the things other automakers can't replicate is the shared information on metallurgy skunkworks that Tesla and SpaceX collaborate on. As far as I'm aware, Audi and Lockheed Martin don't collaborate on alloys.
I watched the video, not impressed. Basically a dude mansplaining using a lot of superlatives and very little actual data. Even his evolution of the horse analogy didn't make sense.
Looking at the rear end of the single cast, it's obvious that repairs will be very expensive (https://insideevs.com/news/560925/tesla-modely-expensive-repair-advice/) compared to vehicles where the rear quarter panel can be replaced.
ETA: To be clear, the single cast body may be very impressive, I just don't think the video is convincing. I'm skeptical by nature (though not cynical), show me the numbers on how much this saves, improves margins, scaling, etc. What's the hard data showing this is a competitive advantage, and why should anyone believe that other automakers can't easily replicate the process (looks like Volvo is already investing in megacasting). And again, what's the repairability story -- I don't mean the underlying frame which always results in a total loss if damaged -- but rather aesthetic body panels.
The man you deride as “mansplaining” the advantages of Tesla’s engineering and manufacturing process has roughly 50 years of direct industry experience. He worked internally as an engineer for the Detroit OEMs. He runs his own successful and reputable business doing vehicle tear downs. Many OEMs buy his detailed reports. What is your experience in this realm?
If you watched the video I question your comprehension skills. All the questions you are asking are answered in the video by an actual expert in the field. Munro prices out the entire vehicle, down to the smallest washer, nut and bolt. They price out the raw material and labor costs as well. They know precisely what it costs to manufacture each vehicle they tear down. Have you priced out every component and the manufacturing costs of the Model Y?
Intuitively, if you are replacing dozens of largely outsourced components and replacing it with a single, vertically integrated casting you are saving money and time (which is money). You no longer have to order, store, move about the factory, and assemble dozens of parts. Instead, a gigapress machine creates a single casting in a matter of seconds. Fewer parts means less things that can go wrong in the supply chain, during assembly, and down the road (recalls). This opens up factory floor space, requires far less labor, and less equipment (welders, etc.).
As for damage, Sandy says it right in the video. If the steel understructure of an OEM car is bent the car is totaled. The aluminum alloy casting of the Tesla is super strong. If it does crack, it can be welded and the vehicle is not totaled. You are talking about vehicle panels, but those are not part of the casting Tesla is using or Munro is praising. The entire understructure of the Tesla model Y consists of two mega-castings attached to a structural battery pack. The body panels are then attached to this structure, just like in other cars. If a Tesla panel is dinged, the body panel can be replaced.
You continue to ask endless questions to which the answers are readily available in most cases and play it off as healthy skepticism. Showing your ignorance in the process. Being skeptical is great, being intransigent or immovable in the face of direct, contradictory answers to your questions from subject matter experts is not.
As I see it you really have two choices. 1) Accept the conclusion of one of the leading experts in the field when he says the Tesla castings represent a major step forward in the industry and significant cost savings. 2) Buy Munro’s Tesla Model Y report. Buy a model Y. Tear down the Model Y, pricing out each component piece by piece. Compare your findings to Munro’s findings.
We look forward to your findings.
If my tone is snarky, understand its because I have no patience left for internet experts that have been proven wrong about Tesla time and time again over the years, but jump from “concern” to “concern" while offering no expertise. Most have no position in Tesla and aren’t considering one, but are “concerned" over how others invest their money. I wouldn’t even feel compelled to respond, but for the fear some may mistake their “concerns” for actual insight.
Meanwhile, the market makers have decided they’re unlikely to push TSLA down any further. So, after fleecing retail longs, those on margin, and option holders on the way down, they’ll now load up on cheap shares and fleece the retail shorts on the way back up. Wall Street loves volatility. My not advice, buy and hold for the long term (two years minimum). Stock is up 30% year-to-date, but still down more than 50% from ATH.
So are you an engineer on a Tesla factory line or do you work in Tesla's finance department? Tell me more about why casting an entire car body at once is more economical than doing it in sections. What do they do with the entire car body when it gets a ding or a defect - scrap the whole thing? Does the process pass a cost on to consumers through higher costs of repairs? How does the undercoating process work, without risking getting material on the to-be painted surfaces? Is the rigidity of this carefully-tuned process why Tesla isn't introducing new models very quickly (to avoid "manufacturing hell"?)?
And how in 100+ years of car manufacturing history, across dozens of brands and hundreds of factories, is Tesla the only company that could ever pull off this apparently revolutionary process? What'll they think of next, stainless steel car bodies? :)
You didn't watch this last time. And again, show lack any reasonable effort to do any research before you speak.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNWYk4DdT_E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNWYk4DdT_E)
Also, it's just the Model Y AFAIK, none of the other models. Maybe that's cool, but I don't know how it is a huge competitive advantage. It isn't the whole body either: https://electrek.co/2021/10/05/tesla-building-model-y-bodies-single-front-rear-castings-manufacturing-first/
Audi also has cool unibody/frame technology but no one bids their stock up to nosebleed heights: https://www.audi-technology-portal.de/en/body/aluminium-bodies/audi-spaceframe-en
Audi never got it to scale. 550,000 since 1994?...One of the issues Tesla has solved with their alloys is they don't require a heat treat after casting which reduces cost and errors if the cast warps before treating. Criticism is fair for Tesla not innovating everything. They don't, but one of the things other automakers can't replicate is the shared information on metallurgy skunkworks that Tesla and SpaceX collaborate on. As far as I'm aware, Audi and Lockheed Martin don't collaborate on alloys.
I watched the video, not impressed. Basically a dude mansplaining using a lot of superlatives and very little actual data. Even his evolution of the horse analogy didn't make sense.
Looking at the rear end of the single cast, it's obvious that repairs will be very expensive (https://insideevs.com/news/560925/tesla-modely-expensive-repair-advice/) compared to vehicles where the rear quarter panel can be replaced.
ETA: To be clear, the single cast body may be very impressive, I just don't think the video is convincing. I'm skeptical by nature (though not cynical), show me the numbers on how much this saves, improves margins, scaling, etc. What's the hard data showing this is a competitive advantage, and why should anyone believe that other automakers can't easily replicate the process (looks like Volvo is already investing in megacasting). And again, what's the repairability story -- I don't mean the underlying frame which always results in a total loss if damaged -- but rather aesthetic body panels.
The man you deride as “mansplaining” the advantages of Tesla’s engineering and manufacturing process has roughly 50 years of direct industry experience. He worked internally as an engineer for the Detroit OEMs. He runs his own successful and reputable business doing vehicle tear downs. Many OEMs buy his detailed reports. What is your experience in this realm?
If you watched the video I question your comprehension skills. All the questions you are asking are answered in the video by an actual expert in the field. Munro prices out the entire vehicle, down to the smallest washer, nut and bolt. They price out the raw material and labor costs as well. They know precisely what it costs to manufacture each vehicle they tear down. Have you priced out every component and the manufacturing costs of the Model Y?
Intuitively, if you are replacing dozens of largely outsourced components and replacing it with a single, vertically integrated casting you are saving money and time (which is money). You no longer have to order, store, move about the factory, and assemble dozens of parts. Instead, a gigapress machine creates a single casting in a matter of seconds. Fewer parts means less things that can go wrong in the supply chain, during assembly, and down the road (recalls). This opens up factory floor space, requires far less labor, and less equipment (welders, etc.).
As for damage, Sandy says it right in the video. If the steel understructure of an OEM car is bent the car is totaled. The aluminum alloy casting of the Tesla is super strong. If it does crack, it can be welded and the vehicle is not totaled. You are talking about vehicle panels, but those are not part of the casting Tesla is using or Munro is praising. The entire understructure of the Tesla model Y consists of two mega-castings attached to a structural battery pack. The body panels are then attached to this structure, just like in other cars. If a Tesla panel is dinged, the body panel can be replaced.
You continue to ask endless questions to which the answers are readily available in most cases and play it off as healthy skepticism. Showing your ignorance in the process. Being skeptical is great, being intransigent or immovable in the face of direct, contradictory answers to your questions from subject matter experts is not.
As I see it you really have two choices. 1) Accept the conclusion of one of the leading experts in the field when he says the Tesla castings represent a major step forward in the industry and significant cost savings. 2) Buy Munro’s Tesla Model Y report. Buy a model Y. Tear down the Model Y, pricing out each component piece by piece. Compare your findings to Munro’s findings.
We look forward to your findings.
If my tone is snarky, understand its because I have no patience left for internet experts that have been proven wrong about Tesla time and time again over the years, but jump from “concern” to “concern" while offering no expertise. Most have no position in Tesla and aren’t considering one, but are “concerned" over how others invest their money. I wouldn’t even feel compelled to respond, but for the fear some may mistake their “concerns” for actual insight.
Meanwhile, the market makers have decided they’re unlikely to push TSLA down any further. So, after fleecing retail longs, those on margin, and option holders on the way down, they’ll now load up on cheap shares and fleece the retail shorts on the way back up. Wall Street loves volatility. My not advice, buy and hold for the long term (two years minimum). Stock is up 30% year-to-date, but still down more than 50% from ATH.
You're making an appeal to authority that I don't find particularly compelling. I'm not deriding the man, just pointing out that he is, in fact, mansplaining. I didn't find the video very informative.
Megacastings may be the future, I just want to see a more balanced view. There's a valid concern about damage that is potentially much more expensive to repair leading to higher rates of totaled vehicles and consequently higher insurance rates. Repairer Driven News (repair industry mag) has an interesting discussion about this: https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2022/06/06/ducker-oems-show-interest-in-mega-castings-despite-many-doubts-about-their-performance/
So are you an engineer on a Tesla factory line or do you work in Tesla's finance department? Tell me more about why casting an entire car body at once is more economical than doing it in sections. What do they do with the entire car body when it gets a ding or a defect - scrap the whole thing? Does the process pass a cost on to consumers through higher costs of repairs? How does the undercoating process work, without risking getting material on the to-be painted surfaces? Is the rigidity of this carefully-tuned process why Tesla isn't introducing new models very quickly (to avoid "manufacturing hell"?)?
And how in 100+ years of car manufacturing history, across dozens of brands and hundreds of factories, is Tesla the only company that could ever pull off this apparently revolutionary process? What'll they think of next, stainless steel car bodies? :)
You didn't watch this last time. And again, show lack any reasonable effort to do any research before you speak.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNWYk4DdT_E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNWYk4DdT_E)
Also, it's just the Model Y AFAIK, none of the other models. Maybe that's cool, but I don't know how it is a huge competitive advantage. It isn't the whole body either: https://electrek.co/2021/10/05/tesla-building-model-y-bodies-single-front-rear-castings-manufacturing-first/
Audi also has cool unibody/frame technology but no one bids their stock up to nosebleed heights: https://www.audi-technology-portal.de/en/body/aluminium-bodies/audi-spaceframe-en
Audi never got it to scale. 550,000 since 1994?...One of the issues Tesla has solved with their alloys is they don't require a heat treat after casting which reduces cost and errors if the cast warps before treating. Criticism is fair for Tesla not innovating everything. They don't, but one of the things other automakers can't replicate is the shared information on metallurgy skunkworks that Tesla and SpaceX collaborate on. As far as I'm aware, Audi and Lockheed Martin don't collaborate on alloys.
I watched the video, not impressed. Basically a dude mansplaining using a lot of superlatives and very little actual data. Even his evolution of the horse analogy didn't make sense.
Looking at the rear end of the single cast, it's obvious that repairs will be very expensive (https://insideevs.com/news/560925/tesla-modely-expensive-repair-advice/) compared to vehicles where the rear quarter panel can be replaced.
ETA: To be clear, the single cast body may be very impressive, I just don't think the video is convincing. I'm skeptical by nature (though not cynical), show me the numbers on how much this saves, improves margins, scaling, etc. What's the hard data showing this is a competitive advantage, and why should anyone believe that other automakers can't easily replicate the process (looks like Volvo is already investing in megacasting). And again, what's the repairability story -- I don't mean the underlying frame which always results in a total loss if damaged -- but rather aesthetic body panels.
The man you deride as “mansplaining” the advantages of Tesla’s engineering and manufacturing process has roughly 50 years of direct industry experience. He worked internally as an engineer for the Detroit OEMs. He runs his own successful and reputable business doing vehicle tear downs. Many OEMs buy his detailed reports. What is your experience in this realm?
If you watched the video I question your comprehension skills. All the questions you are asking are answered in the video by an actual expert in the field. Munro prices out the entire vehicle, down to the smallest washer, nut and bolt. They price out the raw material and labor costs as well. They know precisely what it costs to manufacture each vehicle they tear down. Have you priced out every component and the manufacturing costs of the Model Y?
Intuitively, if you are replacing dozens of largely outsourced components and replacing it with a single, vertically integrated casting you are saving money and time (which is money). You no longer have to order, store, move about the factory, and assemble dozens of parts. Instead, a gigapress machine creates a single casting in a matter of seconds. Fewer parts means less things that can go wrong in the supply chain, during assembly, and down the road (recalls). This opens up factory floor space, requires far less labor, and less equipment (welders, etc.).
As for damage, Sandy says it right in the video. If the steel understructure of an OEM car is bent the car is totaled. The aluminum alloy casting of the Tesla is super strong. If it does crack, it can be welded and the vehicle is not totaled. You are talking about vehicle panels, but those are not part of the casting Tesla is using or Munro is praising. The entire understructure of the Tesla model Y consists of two mega-castings attached to a structural battery pack. The body panels are then attached to this structure, just like in other cars. If a Tesla panel is dinged, the body panel can be replaced.
You continue to ask endless questions to which the answers are readily available in most cases and play it off as healthy skepticism. Showing your ignorance in the process. Being skeptical is great, being intransigent or immovable in the face of direct, contradictory answers to your questions from subject matter experts is not.
As I see it you really have two choices. 1) Accept the conclusion of one of the leading experts in the field when he says the Tesla castings represent a major step forward in the industry and significant cost savings. 2) Buy Munro’s Tesla Model Y report. Buy a model Y. Tear down the Model Y, pricing out each component piece by piece. Compare your findings to Munro’s findings.
We look forward to your findings.
If my tone is snarky, understand its because I have no patience left for internet experts that have been proven wrong about Tesla time and time again over the years, but jump from “concern” to “concern" while offering no expertise. Most have no position in Tesla and aren’t considering one, but are “concerned" over how others invest their money. I wouldn’t even feel compelled to respond, but for the fear some may mistake their “concerns” for actual insight.
Meanwhile, the market makers have decided they’re unlikely to push TSLA down any further. So, after fleecing retail longs, those on margin, and option holders on the way down, they’ll now load up on cheap shares and fleece the retail shorts on the way back up. Wall Street loves volatility. My not advice, buy and hold for the long term (two years minimum). Stock is up 30% year-to-date, but still down more than 50% from ATH.
You're making an appeal to authority that I don't find particularly compelling. I'm not deriding the man, just pointing out that he is, in fact, mansplaining. I didn't find the video very informative.
Megacastings may be the future, I just want to see a more balanced view. There's a valid concern about damage that is potentially much more expensive to repair leading to higher rates of totaled vehicles and consequently higher insurance rates. Repairer Driven News (repair industry mag) has an interesting discussion about this: https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2022/06/06/ducker-oems-show-interest-in-mega-castings-despite-many-doubts-about-their-performance/
Simply saying you have doubts and casting aside actual subject expertise is quite frankly ridiculous unless you are offering up a substantive response and not just saying you don’t find the expert “compelling”. Debating opinions or largely baseless “concerns" has no value in the investor context. You and ChpBstrd have both shown you are unwilling or unable to move past bear talking points that have been refuted time and again over the course of this thread. New “concerns” will always arise around Tesla or any business. Myopically focusing on the challenges and ignoring the unprecedented successes shows clear bias. Nothing personal, but I think we’re done as far as this topic is concerned.
As for your link, the article takes selective quotes from a 3-page “white paper” as the basis for it’s conclusions. The authors of the white paper are employees of Ducker, which is a for-profit industry consultant the does research on behalf of clients. The white paper itself contains no data or actual research, but repeatedly brings up “concerns” over the repairability of the megacastings. It is unclear if the authors are even subject matter experts, such has having worked as an engineer for an OEM, metallurgical expertise, etc.
Basically, you have backed up your unfounded claims about repairability, which was directly refuted by an actual industry expert with decades of relevant experience, by citing an article, based on a 3-page white paper that brings up unfounded and unsupported “concerns” about repairability.
Lastly, here’s the two sentences of the white paper.
Nio and Xpeng, two Chinese EV startups, have already followed Tesla's lead by ordering injection molding machines capable of 12,000 tons of force from IDRA (LK Machinery). Now it's Mercedes-Benz's turn for its EQXX to succumb to giant castings.
In this context the word ‘succumb' is telling and hints at bias against the new disruptive technology. To me, it looks like a conventional auto parts supplier with a financial incentive to slow adoption of megacastings hired Decker to write a “white paper”, masquerading as “research” to throw doubt on to the new technology in the hopes of slowing adoption. Do you really think Tesla went down this road blindly without considering repairability?
that have “concerns”, but offer no data or proof that Tesla’s megacastings will cause Tesla’s to be declared total losses at a higher rate that conventional steel frame vehicles. So, to back up your unfounded concerns you reference an article that brings up unfounded “concerns”? It is unclear if the authors have any direct subject matter expertise, such as working for OEMs and an engineer, metallurgical expertise, etc.
The research firm Ducker that commissioned the white paper operates on behalf of industrial clients.
So are you an engineer on a Tesla factory line or do you work in Tesla's finance department? Tell me more about why casting an entire car body at once is more economical than doing it in sections. What do they do with the entire car body when it gets a ding or a defect - scrap the whole thing? Does the process pass a cost on to consumers through higher costs of repairs? How does the undercoating process work, without risking getting material on the to-be painted surfaces? Is the rigidity of this carefully-tuned process why Tesla isn't introducing new models very quickly (to avoid "manufacturing hell"?)?
And how in 100+ years of car manufacturing history, across dozens of brands and hundreds of factories, is Tesla the only company that could ever pull off this apparently revolutionary process? What'll they think of next, stainless steel car bodies? :)
You didn't watch this last time. And again, show lack any reasonable effort to do any research before you speak.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNWYk4DdT_E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNWYk4DdT_E)
Also, it's just the Model Y AFAIK, none of the other models. Maybe that's cool, but I don't know how it is a huge competitive advantage. It isn't the whole body either: https://electrek.co/2021/10/05/tesla-building-model-y-bodies-single-front-rear-castings-manufacturing-first/
Audi also has cool unibody/frame technology but no one bids their stock up to nosebleed heights: https://www.audi-technology-portal.de/en/body/aluminium-bodies/audi-spaceframe-en
Audi never got it to scale. 550,000 since 1994?...One of the issues Tesla has solved with their alloys is they don't require a heat treat after casting which reduces cost and errors if the cast warps before treating. Criticism is fair for Tesla not innovating everything. They don't, but one of the things other automakers can't replicate is the shared information on metallurgy skunkworks that Tesla and SpaceX collaborate on. As far as I'm aware, Audi and Lockheed Martin don't collaborate on alloys.
I watched the video, not impressed. Basically a dude mansplaining using a lot of superlatives and very little actual data. Even his evolution of the horse analogy didn't make sense.
Looking at the rear end of the single cast, it's obvious that repairs will be very expensive (https://insideevs.com/news/560925/tesla-modely-expensive-repair-advice/) compared to vehicles where the rear quarter panel can be replaced.
ETA: To be clear, the single cast body may be very impressive, I just don't think the video is convincing. I'm skeptical by nature (though not cynical), show me the numbers on how much this saves, improves margins, scaling, etc. What's the hard data showing this is a competitive advantage, and why should anyone believe that other automakers can't easily replicate the process (looks like Volvo is already investing in megacasting). And again, what's the repairability story -- I don't mean the underlying frame which always results in a total loss if damaged -- but rather aesthetic body panels.
So are you an engineer on a Tesla factory line or do you work in Tesla's finance department? Tell me more about why casting an entire car body at once is more economical than doing it in sections. What do they do with the entire car body when it gets a ding or a defect - scrap the whole thing? Does the process pass a cost on to consumers through higher costs of repairs? How does the undercoating process work, without risking getting material on the to-be painted surfaces? Is the rigidity of this carefully-tuned process why Tesla isn't introducing new models very quickly (to avoid "manufacturing hell"?)?
And how in 100+ years of car manufacturing history, across dozens of brands and hundreds of factories, is Tesla the only company that could ever pull off this apparently revolutionary process? What'll they think of next, stainless steel car bodies? :)
You didn't watch this last time. And again, show lack any reasonable effort to do any research before you speak.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNWYk4DdT_E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNWYk4DdT_E)
Also, it's just the Model Y AFAIK, none of the other models. Maybe that's cool, but I don't know how it is a huge competitive advantage. It isn't the whole body either: https://electrek.co/2021/10/05/tesla-building-model-y-bodies-single-front-rear-castings-manufacturing-first/
Audi also has cool unibody/frame technology but no one bids their stock up to nosebleed heights: https://www.audi-technology-portal.de/en/body/aluminium-bodies/audi-spaceframe-en
Audi never got it to scale. 550,000 since 1994?...One of the issues Tesla has solved with their alloys is they don't require a heat treat after casting which reduces cost and errors if the cast warps before treating. Criticism is fair for Tesla not innovating everything. They don't, but one of the things other automakers can't replicate is the shared information on metallurgy skunkworks that Tesla and SpaceX collaborate on. As far as I'm aware, Audi and Lockheed Martin don't collaborate on alloys.
I watched the video, not impressed. Basically a dude mansplaining using a lot of superlatives and very little actual data. Even his evolution of the horse analogy didn't make sense.
Looking at the rear end of the single cast, it's obvious that repairs will be very expensive (https://insideevs.com/news/560925/tesla-modely-expensive-repair-advice/) compared to vehicles where the rear quarter panel can be replaced.
ETA: To be clear, the single cast body may be very impressive, I just don't think the video is convincing. I'm skeptical by nature (though not cynical), show me the numbers on how much this saves, improves margins, scaling, etc. What's the hard data showing this is a competitive advantage, and why should anyone believe that other automakers can't easily replicate the process (looks like Volvo is already investing in megacasting). And again, what's the repairability story -- I don't mean the underlying frame which always results in a total loss if damaged -- but rather aesthetic body panels.
I didn't see any mansplaining going on in the video....what are specifically referring to?
LOL! Your ad-hom is noted and further reduces my opinion of you. I have zero financial interest in Tesla other than whatever VTI includes.So are you an engineer on a Tesla factory line or do you work in Tesla's finance department? Tell me more about why casting an entire car body at once is more economical than doing it in sections. What do they do with the entire car body when it gets a ding or a defect - scrap the whole thing? Does the process pass a cost on to consumers through higher costs of repairs?So your "neither seems particularly plausible" claim is based on... your massive ignorance of the topic at hand?I have no clue about how factories construct car frames because I am not an engineer in that niche. Similarly, I have no information about what each factory in the US, Europe, China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Mexico, etc. is doing, or their relative cost advantages compared to each other. All you need to know is that it's clear business is less of a predictable meritocracy than most of us believe. The best product does not always succeed, the best strategies are often sunk by luck, the hardest working people are not always the most competent and vice versa.https://doctorow.medium.com/the-true-genius-of-tech-leaders-46d6e3439989 (https://doctorow.medium.com/the-true-genius-of-tech-leaders-46d6e3439989)
Based on this perspective, for Tesla to continue dominating the EV market they'd need to quickly acquire and then employ or destroy new technologies to prevent others from using them, or use capital markets to underprice their competitors. Neither seems particularly plausible in the car construction heavy industry,
That's an interesting interpretation of the article. It doesn't strike me as particularly accurate.
Regarding the last bit: Remind me again which other car manufacturer is using frame castings as large as Tesla does? Half the frame in each casting.
Got it.
You're making an appeal to authority that I don't find particularly compelling. I'm not deriding the man, just pointing out that he is, in fact, mansplaining. I didn't find the video very informative.That's more of a commentary on your degree of comprehension (or lack thereof) than on a company from which just about every major OEM has purchased vehicle teardown reports. Munro and Associates are an actual experts on the matter being discussed. You seem to also not fully understand what the "appeal to authority" fallacy is actually about: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/
I don't have to substantiate my concerns.LOL. Well, thanks for confirming the worth (or lack thereof) of your "concerns". They can go right in the scrap bin along with your personal opinion of "tone" which you mischaracterized as "mansplaining".
Oh, and if you bend the frame on most modern cars, it's scrap.
The crash absorption rails can be cut off & replaced with a bolted part for collision repair
I don't have to substantiate my concerns.LOL. Well, thanks for confirming the worth (or lack thereof) of your "concerns". They can go right in the scrap bin along with your personal opinion of "tone" which you mischaracterized as "mansplaining".
If someone claims TSLA is a good investment because gigacasting, then I want to see compelling evidence for that,Which makes it puzzling you chose to respond to me. Did I make that claim? No. Seems like another logical fallacy: Strawman.
If someone claims TSLA is a good investment because gigacasting, then I want to see compelling evidence for that,Which makes it puzzling you chose to respond to me. Did I make that claim? No. Seems like another logical fallacy: Strawman.
nor do I think you're wrong to be invested in Tesla.Do you even read? Or are you insinuating that I was lying when I said I don't have any investment in Tesla beyond whatever happens to be in VTI?
nor do I think you're wrong to be invested in Tesla.Do you even read? Or are you insinuating that I was lying when I said I don't have any investment in Tesla beyond whatever happens to be in VTI?
Note to self:
Do not invest your money into companies where other people invest their emotions (love or hate).
TSLA 52 week performance as of today: -54%.
I am a car guy, and Musk is an idiot. Nobody is bolting on replacement frame pieces in a modern car. A bent frame (in as much as any modern car has a frame, all Teslas are really a unibody with no distinct frame) can either be straightened on a frame rack or the car is totaled. That is not unique to a Tesla. Replacing major chassis structure just isn't done, at least in America, at any scale. With body shops charging hundreds of dollars per hour and liability for any injuries in that car passing to any and every party involved in the repair, it just doesn't make sense financially for the insurance companies to do it. So they send it to auction with a salvage title and pass the liability on.Oh, and if you bend the frame on most modern cars, it's scrap.QuoteThe crash absorption rails can be cut off & replaced with a bolted part for collision repair
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1313874241134063616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1313874241134063616%7Ctwgr%5E972da973ff329d2f8f0c0762c638720397a9788c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.teslarati.com%2Ftesla-single-cast-collision-repair-strategy-elon-musk%2F (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1313874241134063616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1313874241134063616%7Ctwgr%5E972da973ff329d2f8f0c0762c638720397a9788c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.teslarati.com%2Ftesla-single-cast-collision-repair-strategy-elon-musk%2F)
Why is Musk talking about cutting chunks of Tesla frames off for repairs? Certainly makes it seem like some of the Telsa frame is expected to be damaged in collisions. I get that there are tremendous efficiencies in stamping out a single piece frame for Tesla . . . but wouldn't it be a lot cheaper for the car owner if there was simply a removable part rather than part of single cast design? Or am I crazy about this? (I'm not a car guy, just curious.)
I am a car guy, and Musk is an idiot. Nobody is bolting on replacement frame pieces in a modern car. A bent frame (in as much as any modern car has a frame, all Teslas are really a unibody with no distinct frame) can either be straightened on a frame rack or the car is totaled. That is not unique to a Tesla. Replacing major chassis structure just isn't done, at least in America, at any scale. With body shops charging hundreds of dollars per hour and liability for any injuries in that car passing to any and every party involved in the repair, it just doesn't make sense financially for the insurance companies to do it. So they send it to auction with a salvage title and pass the liability on.Oh, and if you bend the frame on most modern cars, it's scrap.QuoteThe crash absorption rails can be cut off & replaced with a bolted part for collision repair
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1313874241134063616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1313874241134063616%7Ctwgr%5E972da973ff329d2f8f0c0762c638720397a9788c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.teslarati.com%2Ftesla-single-cast-collision-repair-strategy-elon-musk%2F (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1313874241134063616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1313874241134063616%7Ctwgr%5E972da973ff329d2f8f0c0762c638720397a9788c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.teslarati.com%2Ftesla-single-cast-collision-repair-strategy-elon-musk%2F)
Why is Musk talking about cutting chunks of Tesla frames off for repairs? Certainly makes it seem like some of the Telsa frame is expected to be damaged in collisions. I get that there are tremendous efficiencies in stamping out a single piece frame for Tesla . . . but wouldn't it be a lot cheaper for the car owner if there was simply a removable part rather than part of single cast design? Or am I crazy about this? (I'm not a car guy, just curious.)
Note to self:
Do not invest your money into companies where other people invest their emotions (love or hate).
TSLA 52 week performance as of today: -54%.
YTD - 37%
5 YR - 532%
IPO - 11,184%
It’s a rather weak and frankly insulting argument to accuse Tesla investors of “investing their emotions” simply because you do not see the value. I didn’t invest in Apple. I didn’t get it, but I didn’t accuse Apple investors of being Steve Jobs fan boys, go getting lucky, or of investing emotionally to make myself feel better. Good for those who had the foresight.
I’ve been invested in Tesla since 2013. Almost a decade. It’s my lack of emotion that has allowed me to focus on the signal, ignore all the noise, and stay invested through all the turbulence.
Tesla grew revenue 51% YOY. Now, that kinda growth from a megacap does bring a tear to my eye : )
Note to self:
Do not invest your money into companies where other people invest their emotions (love or hate).
TSLA 52 week performance as of today: -54%.
YTD - 37%
5 YR - 532%
IPO - 11,184%
It’s a rather weak and frankly insulting argument to accuse Tesla investors of “investing their emotions” simply because you do not see the value. I didn’t invest in Apple. I didn’t get it, but I didn’t accuse Apple investors of being Steve Jobs fan boys, go getting lucky, or of investing emotionally to make myself feel better. Good for those who had the foresight.
I’ve been invested in Tesla since 2013. Almost a decade. It’s my lack of emotion that has allowed me to focus on the signal, ignore all the noise, and stay invested through all the turbulence.
Tesla grew revenue 51% YOY. Now, that kinda growth from a megacap does bring a tear to my eye : )
Stock is up sharply today. I think the exciting piece of the earnings was the energy segment up 152% from Q4 2021.
If we want to look at emotion: There seems to be a remarkably emotional response by tesla bears in this thread. Like they made an initial decision on tesla 3-4 years ago and no amount of growth or profit is going to change that, constantly moving goalposts for what tesla success looks like, and getting all bent out of shape over any information to the contrary while cherry picking performance timelines to show the worst possible metric (while the entire market is down!) and ignoring the larger trend of profitability and valuation.
I mean it takes a lot of emotion to keep creatively finding new ways that tesla will fail while claiming not to care. It makes sense for tesla investors or potential tesla investors to be into the nitty gritty of it, but it appears like tesla bears made a 'prediction' on tesla 3-4 years ago and are very emotionally invested in not altering their view no matter how much the landscape changes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance.
Meanwhile - the rocketlab thread ha also followed a stock that has been down 70% in the past year, has had a number of fails, and has never turned a profit. No one saying boo over there really. Seems odd to me.
I bought 100 shares earlier this week (yes!!) and probably have some more of it buried in S&P funds. But for picking individual stocks I generally don't allow myself to buy more than about 1% of my total net worth in any one stock. I don't need that kind of risk.
If we want to look at emotion: There seems to be a remarkably emotional response by tesla bears in this thread. Like they made an initial decision on tesla 3-4 years ago and no amount of growth or profit is going to change that, constantly moving goalposts for what tesla success looks like, and getting all bent out of shape over any information to the contrary while cherry picking performance timelines to show the worst possible metric (while the entire market is down!) and ignoring the larger trend of profitability and valuation.
.Note to self:
Do not invest your money into companies where other people invest their emotions (love or hate).
TSLA 52 week performance as of today: -54%.
YTD - 37%
5 YR - 532%
IPO - 11,184%
It’s a rather weak and frankly insulting argument to accuse Tesla investors of “investing their emotions” simply because you do not see the value. I didn’t invest in Apple. I didn’t get it, but I didn’t accuse Apple investors of being Steve Jobs fan boys, go getting lucky, or of investing emotionally to make myself feel better. Good for those who had the foresight.
I’ve been invested in Tesla since 2013. Almost a decade. It’s my lack of emotion that has allowed me to focus on the signal, ignore all the noise, and stay invested through all the turbulence.
Tesla grew revenue 51% YOY. Now, that kinda growth from a megacap does bring a tear to my eye : )
FWIW, we can currently buy out options on TSLA expiring in January 2021 at the $50 strike price for about $6.88. In layman's terms, this is a wager that would yield a 627% return if TSLA goes bankrupt and shares go to zero and a 100% loss if that fails to happen.
Those are not bad odds considering that Elon's Twitter addiction might have just blocked the company's last remaining route to raise the $2B it needs to operate a little longer.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4207331-tesla-may-now-locked-capital-markets (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4207331-tesla-may-now-locked-capital-markets)
I'm way too risk averse to throw $100k at the idea, but damn it sure is a tempting fantasy play to retire in 6-12 months.
Musk is more of a super-optimistic idea person and that's why he's been so successful.
As we've seen, that's not enough for some investors or analysts, including the S&P committee. The risk is just too high -- optimism and great ideas don't always mean high profits or corporate longevity.
The trick for the early Tesla investors is to realize that trades have 2 sides. One is the entry and one is the exit.
Thanks for sharing your concerns du jour Bacchi. You first contributed to this thread in September 2020 to caution Tesla investors fortunate enough to invest early that they should consider exiting the stock (presumably before it crashes). Anyone taking your advice spared themselves a doubling of their investment in the months to follow. You also warned us about the risk Tesla wouldn’t achieve “high profits” or "corporate longevity", yet somehow Tesla persists while making industry leading profit margin.Musk is more of a super-optimistic idea person and that's why he's been so successful.
As we've seen, that's not enough for some investors or analysts, including the S&P committee. The risk is just too high -- optimism and great ideas don't always mean high profits or corporate longevity.
The trick for the early Tesla investors is to realize that trades have 2 sides. One is the entry and one is the exit.
Moving goalposts? It was just a few weeks ago when we learned that deliveries didn't reach 50% and the goalpost was shifted to production numbers even though Tesla's/Musk's stated delivery goal wasn't achieved (1.4M deliveries).Got a good citation that it was actually a delivery goal? Typically the predictions are for production and it's common for popular media to misreport one for the other.
Finally, there were the cries about "There's no real competition!" even though BYD, a legacy manufacturer, is selling equivalent sized sedans and will probably sell more BEVs than Tesla this year (142% YOY in Q4). But we're a US majority board and only US and European car companies count or something.Really? At this point I've been saying for years that Chinese EV companies are likely to be the biggest competition for Tesla.
Finally, there were the cries about "There's no real competition!" even though BYD, a legacy manufacturer, is selling equivalent sized sedans and will probably sell more BEVs than Tesla this year (142% YOY in Q4). But we're a US majority board and only US and European car companies count or something.Really? At this point I've been saying for years that Chinese EV companies are likely to be the biggest competition for Tesla.
Moving goalposts? It was just a few weeks ago when we learned that deliveries didn't reach 50% and the goalpost was shifted to production numbers even though Tesla's/Musk's stated delivery goal wasn't achieved (1.4M deliveries).Got a good citation that it was actually a delivery goal? Typically the predictions are for production and it's common for popular media to misreport one for the other.
We plan to grow our manufacturing capacity as quickly as possible. Over a multi-year horizon, we expect to achieve 50% average annual growth in vehicle deliveries. The rate of growth will depend on our equipment capacity, factory uptime, operational efficiency and the capacity and stability of the supply chain.
While the deck does state "average annual growth," the street obviously expected 50% delivery growth in 2022, especially with Musk's prediction of 1.5M earlier in the year.* It's why the stock dumped on the 3rd.
While the deck does state "average annual growth," the street obviously expected 50% delivery growth in 2022, especially with Musk's prediction of 1.5M earlier in the year.* It's why the stock dumped on the 3rd.
Yea, I've always heard it as a long term average of 50% growth rate. Yes, Musk's "off the cuff" comments are usually overly optimistic. I would personally interpret "a reasonable shot" as an optimistic upper bound, not the midpoint or expected result.
One might note that was a pretty transitory "dump" - it took a whole 8 days to fully recover and the stock is now >$40 higher than pre-"dump".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-lm&q=tsla
While the deck does state "average annual growth," the street obviously expected 50% delivery growth in 2022, especially with Musk's prediction of 1.5M earlier in the year.* It's why the stock dumped on the 3rd.
Yea, I've always heard it as a long term average of 50% growth rate. Yes, Musk's "off the cuff" comments are usually overly optimistic. I would personally interpret "a reasonable shot" as an optimistic upper bound, not the midpoint or expected result.
One might note that was a pretty transitory "dump" - it took a whole 8 days to fully recover and the stock is now >$40 higher than pre-"dump".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-lm&q=tsla
My guess is the recovery was from higher EPS than expected even with the missed delivery and revenue. The dropped prices and subsequent increased sales have helped propel the stock as well. (The only numbers we have this month are from the China weekly registrations and they look strong. We can assume that the US numbers are also strong, especially with the EV credit.)
It's a line, though, right? Sell 500 widgets at $100 or sell 700 widgets at $90. Tesla is tweaking the levers to get the most profit. Or maybe it cut prices to maximize its production or to put pressure on its competitors.
While the deck does state "average annual growth," the street obviously expected 50% delivery growth in 2022, especially with Musk's prediction of 1.5M earlier in the year.* It's why the stock dumped on the 3rd.
Yea, I've always heard it as a long term average of 50% growth rate. Yes, Musk's "off the cuff" comments are usually overly optimistic. I would personally interpret "a reasonable shot" as an optimistic upper bound, not the midpoint or expected result.
One might note that was a pretty transitory "dump" - it took a whole 8 days to fully recover and the stock is now >$40 higher than pre-"dump".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-lm&q=tsla
My guess is the recovery was from higher EPS than expected even with the missed delivery and revenue. The dropped prices and subsequent increased sales have helped propel the stock as well. (The only numbers we have this month are from the China weekly registrations and they look strong. We can assume that the US numbers are also strong, especially with the EV credit.)
It's a line, though, right? Sell 500 widgets at $100 or sell 700 widgets at $90. Tesla is tweaking the levers to get the most profit. Or maybe it cut prices to maximize its production or to put pressure on its competitors.
The stock rise in the last 2 days has very little to do with the earnings. There were real concerns about future operating margins and the potential drag from the recession, but the management essentially obliterated all the material concerns in the earnings call.
Another interesting chart. This one shows the revenue of companies over the 5 year period after they achieved 10B+ in revenue. Over the period of 2017-2022 Tesla generated more revenue that Meta, Google, Apple, Amazon or Microsoft. And Tesla did it despite competing in a capital and manufacturing intensive industry with long-established incumbents. It can be argued that Tesla had the toughest path yet still generated more revenue. With Tesla, the further you zoom out the clearer the picture.
Another interesting chart. This one shows the revenue of companies over the 5 year period after they achieved 10B+ in revenue. Over the period of 2017-2022 Tesla generated more revenue that Meta, Google, Apple, Amazon or Microsoft. And Tesla did it despite competing in a capital and manufacturing intensive industry with long-established incumbents. It can be argued that Tesla had the toughest path yet still generated more revenue. With Tesla, the further you zoom out the clearer the picture.
Pretty cool graph, very impressive. It would be interesting to see it adjusted to inflation though. Going from $10B to $20B is a lot easier in 2017 than doing a $10B jump 20 years ago.
Autoblog: Teslas are so expensive to repair, insurers are writing them off (https://www.autoblog.com/2023/01/27/tesla-expensive-to-repair-insurers-writing-off-damaged-cars/), which is driving up insurance for Tesla owners.
Autoblog: Teslas are so expensive to repair, insurers are writing them off (https://www.autoblog.com/2023/01/27/tesla-expensive-to-repair-insurers-writing-off-damaged-cars/), which is driving up insurance for Tesla owners.
What's driving the expense to repair? Is it the one piece frame, the electronics, or something else?
Autoblog: Teslas are so expensive to repair, insurers are writing them off (https://www.autoblog.com/2023/01/27/tesla-expensive-to-repair-insurers-writing-off-damaged-cars/), which is driving up insurance for Tesla owners.
What's driving the expense to repair? Is it the one piece frame, the electronics, or something else?
Here's an interesting case of what should have been a simple fix nearly totaling a Model 3: https://www.thedrive.com/news/41493/teslas-16000-quote-for-a-700-fix-is-why-right-to-repair-matters Basically, a flange integrated into the modeled battery pack (instead of a replaceable part) that was cracked by road debris.
Autoblog: Teslas are so expensive to repair, insurers are writing them off (https://www.autoblog.com/2023/01/27/tesla-expensive-to-repair-insurers-writing-off-damaged-cars/), which is driving up insurance for Tesla owners.
What's driving the expense to repair? Is it the one piece frame, the electronics, or something else?
Here's an interesting case of what should have been a simple fix nearly totaling a Model 3: https://www.thedrive.com/news/41493/teslas-16000-quote-for-a-700-fix-is-why-right-to-repair-matters Basically, a flange integrated into the modeled battery pack (instead of a replaceable part) that was cracked by road debris.
Yikes! So are most of these problems caused by poor engineering then?
I bought 100 shares earlier this week (yes!!) and probably have some more of it buried in S&P funds. But for picking individual stocks I generally don't allow myself to buy more than about 1% of my total net worth in any one stock. I don't need that kind of risk.
That sounds very sensible!
Here's a good summary of Tesla repair issues from Vox: https://www.vox.com/recode/23318725/tesla-repair-mechanic-delay-electric-vehicles-ev
Anecdotally, this's guy's experience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR4CFiuR3tQ
Here's a good summary of Tesla repair issues from Vox: https://www.vox.com/recode/23318725/tesla-repair-mechanic-delay-electric-vehicles-ev
Anecdotally, this's guy's experience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR4CFiuR3tQ
Every car company has issues. Lacking from this article is any real data comparing rate of repairs across brands. Lots of concerns and anecdotes mostly.
In contrast, Tesla has the highest customer satisfaction across all brands in 2022. It’s hard to believe Tesla can both have significant issues with service/repairs AND be number 1 in the industry in customer satisfaction.
https://electrek.co/2022/06/15/tesla-tops-list-most-satisfied-customers-entire-auto-industry/
They [Land Rover] come last in reliability polls, but their owners love having them. I don't get it but I guess there are people that enjoy having their crankshaft on the kitchen table and being forced to uber every now and then. But you have to admit, Landys have a unique charm about them, and that suspension off road is soooo good. Just sucks having to walk back home though.
Here's a good summary of Tesla repair issues from Vox: https://www.vox.com/recode/23318725/tesla-repair-mechanic-delay-electric-vehicles-ev
Anecdotally, this's guy's experience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR4CFiuR3tQ
Every car company has issues. Lacking from this article is any real data comparing rate of repairs across brands. Lots of concerns and anecdotes mostly.
In contrast, Tesla has the highest customer satisfaction across all brands in 2022. It’s hard to believe Tesla can both have significant issues with service/repairs AND be number 1 in the industry in customer satisfaction.
https://electrek.co/2022/06/15/tesla-tops-list-most-satisfied-customers-entire-auto-industry/
Well, Land Rover is #2 so a brand can have high customer satisfaction and be a POS.
A comment from that article,QuoteThey [Land Rover] come last in reliability polls, but their owners love having them. I don't get it but I guess there are people that enjoy having their crankshaft on the kitchen table and being forced to uber every now and then. But you have to admit, Landys have a unique charm about them, and that suspension off road is soooo good. Just sucks having to walk back home though.
Lol.
Eta:
The US ratings don't have Tesla in the Top 10.
https://zutobi.com/us/driver-guides/global-happy-motorist-index
1) Corolla
2) CX-5
3) Tucson
4) F-150
5) Wrangler
Not that I'd consider Jeep a reliable brand either but they are fun.
Is this a Fremont vs Shanghai issue?
Here's a good summary of Tesla repair issues from Vox: https://www.vox.com/recode/23318725/tesla-repair-mechanic-delay-electric-vehicles-ev
Anecdotally, this's guy's experience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR4CFiuR3tQ
Every car company has issues. Lacking from this article is any real data comparing rate of repairs across brands. Lots of concerns and anecdotes mostly.
In contrast, Tesla has the highest customer satisfaction across all brands in 2022. It’s hard to believe Tesla can both have significant issues with service/repairs AND be number 1 in the industry in customer satisfaction.
https://electrek.co/2022/06/15/tesla-tops-list-most-satisfied-customers-entire-auto-industry/
Well, Land Rover is #2 so a brand can have high customer satisfaction and be a POS.
A comment from that article,QuoteThey [Land Rover] come last in reliability polls, but their owners love having them. I don't get it but I guess there are people that enjoy having their crankshaft on the kitchen table and being forced to uber every now and then. But you have to admit, Landys have a unique charm about them, and that suspension off road is soooo good. Just sucks having to walk back home though.
Lol.
Eta:
The US ratings don't have Tesla in the Top 10.
https://zutobi.com/us/driver-guides/global-happy-motorist-index
1) Corolla
2) CX-5
3) Tucson
4) F-150
5) Wrangler
Not that I'd consider Jeep a reliable brand either but they are fun.
Is this a Fremont vs Shanghai issue?
So, you cherry-picked the only list of top brands/vehicles on the site that didn’t have Tesla in the top spot. Can you provide the methodology used to come up with the one list that didn’t have Tesla in the top spot?
As for the Range Rover distraction, I never doubted for a second you’d find a way to discard any data that runs counter to your deeply held “concerns” about Tesla.
The US ratings don't have Tesla in the Top 10.
https://zutobi.com/us/driver-guides/global-happy-motorist-index
1) Corolla
2) CX-5
3) Tucson
4) F-150
5) Wrangler
Not that I'd consider Jeep a reliable brand either but they are fun.
Is this a Fremont vs Shanghai issue?
The US ratings don't have Tesla in the Top 10.
https://zutobi.com/us/driver-guides/global-happy-motorist-index
1) Corolla
2) CX-5
3) Tucson
4) F-150
5) Wrangler
Not that I'd consider Jeep a reliable brand either but they are fun.
Is this a Fremont vs Shanghai issue?
The name of that list is America’s Top Selling Cars with the Highest Owner Ratings. It just means that the top selling cars in quantity in U.S. are ICE. U.S. is slow in moving to EV's. So out of the top selling cars in the U.S., which ones are the top 10 highest rated? That's why Tesla is not on the list.
The US ratings don't have Tesla in the Top 10.
https://zutobi.com/us/driver-guides/global-happy-motorist-index
1) Corolla
2) CX-5
3) Tucson
4) F-150
5) Wrangler
Not that I'd consider Jeep a reliable brand either but they are fun.
Is this a Fremont vs Shanghai issue?
The name of that list is America’s Top Selling Cars with the Highest Owner Ratings. It just means that the top selling cars in quantity in U.S. are ICE. U.S. is slow in moving to EV's. So out of the top selling cars in the U.S., which ones are the top 10 highest rated? That's why Tesla is not on the list.
I thought that too but the 4Runner (#9) sold 121,000 in 2022, the CX-5 sold 151k**, and the Model 3 sold 240k.*** The Forester (#10) sold 114k.
The methodology may otherwise be wonky but Tesla missing is not because of lower sales than some of the other models.
* https://carfigures.com/us-market-brand/toyota/4runner
** https://carfigures.com/us-market-brand/mazda/cx-5
*** https://carfigures.com/us-market-brand/tesla/model-3
Models from Tesla Motors, which leads the market in EV sales, continue to have issues with body hardware, steering and suspension, paint and trim and climate system. The Model 3 has average reliability, while other Tesla models – including the S, Y and X – are below average.
The US ratings don't have Tesla in the Top 10.
https://zutobi.com/us/driver-guides/global-happy-motorist-index
1) Corolla
2) CX-5
3) Tucson
4) F-150
5) Wrangler
Not that I'd consider Jeep a reliable brand either but they are fun.
Is this a Fremont vs Shanghai issue?
The name of that list is America’s Top Selling Cars with the Highest Owner Ratings. It just means that the top selling cars in quantity in U.S. are ICE. U.S. is slow in moving to EV's. So out of the top selling cars in the U.S., which ones are the top 10 highest rated? That's why Tesla is not on the list.
I thought that too but the 4Runner (#9) sold 121,000 in 2022, the CX-5 sold 151k**, and the Model 3 sold 240k.*** The Forester (#10) sold 114k.
The methodology may otherwise be wonky but Tesla missing is not because of lower sales than some of the other models.
* https://carfigures.com/us-market-brand/toyota/4runner
** https://carfigures.com/us-market-brand/mazda/cx-5
*** https://carfigures.com/us-market-brand/tesla/model-3
Ok, then something is not right. If Tesla quality is so bad, then Tesla wouldn't rank 1st on Europe’s Top Selling Cars with the Highest Owner Ratings list. There are 1-off issues that got blown out of proportions. I have a Tesla and I know many many happy Tesla customers. Many families have more than 1 Tesla cars. They probably wouldn't have bought another Tesla if the first one is crap.
Only the author of that article can tell us how he or she came up with that list.
Consumer Reports is a reliable source, yes? Results from their 2023 reliability report (a news article, not the actual report due to pay wall): https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2022/11/15/reliability-cars-consumer-reports-ranking/10703135002/QuoteModels from Tesla Motors, which leads the market in EV sales, continue to have issues with body hardware, steering and suspension, paint and trim and climate system. The Model 3 has average reliability, while other Tesla models – including the S, Y and X – are below average.
If I were to buy a Tesla it would be a Model 3. However, at around $50k it should have better than average reliability. This is also one of the reasons I'll never buy a Land Rover, too much money for a vehicle with lots of problems. Furthermore, Tesla's opposition to right to repair is a big issue to me, which is why I stopped buying Apple products and installed Linux on my perfectly functional but out of support iMac.
Consumer Reports is a reliable source, yes? Results from their 2023 reliability report (a news article, not the actual report due to pay wall): https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2022/11/15/reliability-cars-consumer-reports-ranking/10703135002/QuoteModels from Tesla Motors, which leads the market in EV sales, continue to have issues with body hardware, steering and suspension, paint and trim and climate system. The Model 3 has average reliability, while other Tesla models – including the S, Y and X – are below average.
If I were to buy a Tesla it would be a Model 3. However, at around $50k it should have better than average reliability. This is also one of the reasons I'll never buy a Land Rover, too much money for a vehicle with lots of problems. Furthermore, Tesla's opposition to right to repair is a big issue to me, which is why I stopped buying Apple products and installed Linux on my perfectly functional but out of support iMac.
You can google "Consumer Reports is biased" to examine their reliability.
To get a true sense of user happiness, I'd go to car review sites such as Edmunds, KBB, etc and look at real user reviews. I'd bet that you'd see the majority of Tesla customers are happy.
btw, a Tesla Model 3 is $43990 minus $7500 tax credit if qualified = $36490. They are selling like hotcakes. Not that I'm trying to convince you to get one :)
btw, a Tesla Model 3 is $43990 minus $7500 tax credit if qualified = $36490.
btw, a Tesla Model 3 is $43990 minus $7500 tax credit if qualified = $36490.
Serious question: Let's say that hypothetically I qualify for the tax credit and tomorrow I go and buy a Model 3. When do I get the tax credit money? 13 months from now?
The US ratings don't have Tesla in the Top 10.
https://zutobi.com/us/driver-guides/global-happy-motorist-index
1) Corolla
2) CX-5
3) Tucson
4) F-150
5) Wrangler
Not that I'd consider Jeep a reliable brand either but they are fun.
Is this a Fremont vs Shanghai issue?
The name of that list is America’s Top Selling Cars with the Highest Owner Ratings. It just means that the top selling cars in quantity in U.S. are ICE. U.S. is slow in moving to EV's. So out of the top selling cars in the U.S., which ones are the top 10 highest rated? That's why Tesla is not on the list.
I thought that too but the 4Runner (#9) sold 121,000 in 2022, the CX-5 sold 151k**, and the Model 3 sold 240k.*** The Forester (#10) sold 114k.
The methodology may otherwise be wonky but Tesla missing is not because of lower sales than some of the other models.
* https://carfigures.com/us-market-brand/toyota/4runner
** https://carfigures.com/us-market-brand/mazda/cx-5
*** https://carfigures.com/us-market-brand/tesla/model-3
Ok, then something is not right. If Tesla quality is so bad, then Tesla wouldn't rank 1st on Europe’s Top Selling Cars with the Highest Owner Ratings list. There are 1-off issues that got blown out of proportions. I have a Tesla and I know many many happy Tesla customers. Many families have more than 1 Tesla cars. They probably wouldn't have bought another Tesla if the first one is crap.
Only the author of that article can tell us how he or she came up with that list.
btw, a Tesla Model 3 is $43990 minus $7500 tax credit if qualified = $36490. They are selling like hotcakes. Not that I'm trying to convince you to get one :)
Consumer Reports is a reliable source, yes? Results from their 2023 reliability report (a news article, not the actual report due to pay wall): https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2022/11/15/reliability-cars-consumer-reports-ranking/10703135002/QuoteModels from Tesla Motors, which leads the market in EV sales, continue to have issues with body hardware, steering and suspension, paint and trim and climate system. The Model 3 has average reliability, while other Tesla models – including the S, Y and X – are below average.
If I were to buy a Tesla it would be a Model 3. However, at around $50k it should have better than average reliability. This is also one of the reasons I'll never buy a Land Rover, too much money for a vehicle with lots of problems. Furthermore, Tesla's opposition to right to repair is a big issue to me, which is why I stopped buying Apple products and installed Linux on my perfectly functional but out of support iMac.
Here's a good summary of Tesla repair issues from Vox: https://www.vox.com/recode/23318725/tesla-repair-mechanic-delay-electric-vehicles-ev
Anecdotally, this's guy's experience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR4CFiuR3tQ
Every car company has issues. Lacking from this article is any real data comparing rate of repairs across brands. Lots of concerns and anecdotes mostly.
In contrast, Tesla has the highest customer satisfaction across all brands in 2022. It’s hard to believe Tesla can both have significant issues with service/repairs AND be number 1 in the industry in customer satisfaction.
https://electrek.co/2022/06/15/tesla-tops-list-most-satisfied-customers-entire-auto-industry/
Well, Land Rover is #2 so a brand can have high customer satisfaction and be a POS.
A comment from that article,QuoteThey [Land Rover] come last in reliability polls, but their owners love having them. I don't get it but I guess there are people that enjoy having their crankshaft on the kitchen table and being forced to uber every now and then. But you have to admit, Landys have a unique charm about them, and that suspension off road is soooo good. Just sucks having to walk back home though.
Lol.
Eta:
The US ratings don't have Tesla in the Top 10.
https://zutobi.com/us/driver-guides/global-happy-motorist-index
1) Corolla
2) CX-5
3) Tucson
4) F-150
5) Wrangler
Not that I'd consider Jeep a reliable brand either but they are fun.
Is this a Fremont vs Shanghai issue?
So, you cherry-picked the only list of top brands/vehicles on the site that didn’t have Tesla in the top spot. Can you provide the methodology used to come up with the one list that didn’t have Tesla in the top spot?
US is the top selling country/region for Tesla (China is #2). I'm kinda surprised you didn't mention the US rankings from the same survey so I brought it up.
As for the methodology, it's explained on the site that electrek.co references. You're the one that posted it. Do you not trust it now?QuoteAs for the Range Rover distraction, I never doubted for a second you’d find a way to discard any data that runs counter to your deeply held “concerns” about Tesla.
Dude, the ranking you posted is garbage. It's about customer satisfaction and says nothing about reliability. That's why Land Rover being #2 is important because, though its owners are happy with it, reliability is shit.
That doesn't mean that Tesla has poor quality. Its owners can be very happy with the car and it can have high quality. What you posted, however, doesn't support that assertion. Find something else to prove reliability.
Finally, stop taking things so personally. I'm not pissing in your Cheerios and I didn't steal your dog.
Here's a good summary of Tesla repair issues from Vox: https://www.vox.com/recode/23318725/tesla-repair-mechanic-delay-electric-vehicles-ev
Anecdotally, this's guy's experience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR4CFiuR3tQ
Every car company has issues. Lacking from this article is any real data comparing rate of repairs across brands. Lots of concerns and anecdotes mostly.
In contrast, Tesla has the highest customer satisfaction across all brands in 2022. It’s hard to believe Tesla can both have significant issues with service/repairs AND be number 1 in the industry in customer satisfaction.
https://electrek.co/2022/06/15/tesla-tops-list-most-satisfied-customers-entire-auto-industry/
Well, Land Rover is #2 so a brand can have high customer satisfaction and be a POS.
A comment from that article,QuoteThey [Land Rover] come last in reliability polls, but their owners love having them. I don't get it but I guess there are people that enjoy having their crankshaft on the kitchen table and being forced to uber every now and then. But you have to admit, Landys have a unique charm about them, and that suspension off road is soooo good. Just sucks having to walk back home though.
Lol.
Eta:
The US ratings don't have Tesla in the Top 10.
https://zutobi.com/us/driver-guides/global-happy-motorist-index
1) Corolla
2) CX-5
3) Tucson
4) F-150
5) Wrangler
Not that I'd consider Jeep a reliable brand either but they are fun.
Is this a Fremont vs Shanghai issue?
So, you cherry-picked the only list of top brands/vehicles on the site that didn’t have Tesla in the top spot. Can you provide the methodology used to come up with the one list that didn’t have Tesla in the top spot?
US is the top selling country/region for Tesla (China is #2). I'm kinda surprised you didn't mention the US rankings from the same survey so I brought it up.
As for the methodology, it's explained on the site that electrek.co references. You're the one that posted it. Do you not trust it now?QuoteAs for the Range Rover distraction, I never doubted for a second you’d find a way to discard any data that runs counter to your deeply held “concerns” about Tesla.
Dude, the ranking you posted is garbage. It's about customer satisfaction and says nothing about reliability. That's why Land Rover being #2 is important because, though its owners are happy with it, reliability is shit.
That doesn't mean that Tesla has poor quality. Its owners can be very happy with the car and it can have high quality. What you posted, however, doesn't support that assertion. Find something else to prove reliability.
Finally, stop taking things so personally. I'm not pissing in your Cheerios and I didn't steal your dog.
How’d you know someone stole my dog?
Tesla built a better spoon?Here's a good summary of Tesla repair issues from Vox: https://www.vox.com/recode/23318725/tesla-repair-mechanic-delay-electric-vehicles-ev
Anecdotally, this's guy's experience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR4CFiuR3tQ
Every car company has issues. Lacking from this article is any real data comparing rate of repairs across brands. Lots of concerns and anecdotes mostly.
In contrast, Tesla has the highest customer satisfaction across all brands in 2022. It’s hard to believe Tesla can both have significant issues with service/repairs AND be number 1 in the industry in customer satisfaction.
https://electrek.co/2022/06/15/tesla-tops-list-most-satisfied-customers-entire-auto-industry/
Well, Land Rover is #2 so a brand can have high customer satisfaction and be a POS.
A comment from that article,QuoteThey [Land Rover] come last in reliability polls, but their owners love having them. I don't get it but I guess there are people that enjoy having their crankshaft on the kitchen table and being forced to uber every now and then. But you have to admit, Landys have a unique charm about them, and that suspension off road is soooo good. Just sucks having to walk back home though.
Lol.
Eta:
The US ratings don't have Tesla in the Top 10.
https://zutobi.com/us/driver-guides/global-happy-motorist-index
1) Corolla
2) CX-5
3) Tucson
4) F-150
5) Wrangler
Not that I'd consider Jeep a reliable brand either but they are fun.
Is this a Fremont vs Shanghai issue?
So, you cherry-picked the only list of top brands/vehicles on the site that didn’t have Tesla in the top spot. Can you provide the methodology used to come up with the one list that didn’t have Tesla in the top spot?
US is the top selling country/region for Tesla (China is #2). I'm kinda surprised you didn't mention the US rankings from the same survey so I brought it up.
As for the methodology, it's explained on the site that electrek.co references. You're the one that posted it. Do you not trust it now?QuoteAs for the Range Rover distraction, I never doubted for a second you’d find a way to discard any data that runs counter to your deeply held “concerns” about Tesla.
Dude, the ranking you posted is garbage. It's about customer satisfaction and says nothing about reliability. That's why Land Rover being #2 is important because, though its owners are happy with it, reliability is shit.
That doesn't mean that Tesla has poor quality. Its owners can be very happy with the car and it can have high quality. What you posted, however, doesn't support that assertion. Find something else to prove reliability.
Finally, stop taking things so personally. I'm not pissing in your Cheerios and I didn't steal your dog.
How’d you know someone stole my dog?
Put down the spoon!!!!!!
Here’s the thing. No one is trying to convince you to buy a Tesla vehicle or Tesla stock.
I personally don’t find the need to go around the internet negatively commenting at length about products or stocks I’m not looking to buy.
As for Consumer Reports, I would consider them a credible organization. Looking at the survey methodology, I’d say its far from scientifically rigorous. Per CR, a car can be ranked with as few as 100 respondents (average 250 per vehicle). For Tesla Model Y, that would be out of a population ~500k (US sales) or a sample size of 0.02% - 0.04% The surveys are only sent to US Consumer Report members, which is a very unique subset population or car owners. It’s less likely that folks with no issues will be inclined to respond. Lastly, the 17 areas of reliability range from issues with transmissions to issues with audio systems and trim. And while the goal should be no issues, CR is not providing a breakdown of the issues being reported by category for each vehicle, which I find interesting.
All that to say, I don’t completely disregard the CR findings, but given the methodology, self-selecting participants, and the huge range of issues (in terms of seriousness) being evaluated (and not disclosed), it makes it hard to put much weight to the findings. I give more weight to the customer satisfaction survey results. It's a more straight forward metric. I may have a simple issue with the audio system that was quickly repaired and still be a very satisfied customer despite the issue. The CR reliability survey would only capture that there was an issue without providing a breakdown by category or if it was resolved satisfactorily.
https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/the-trouble-with-nomads.html
Interesting. Seems to confirm Tesla is taking market share from legacy ICE. Not losing EV share to competitors.
Ford boosts production of its flagship EV and drops prices to compete with Tesla
A problem for Ford is that only short-range variants are under the $55k cap. For Tesla you can purchase either a Model 3 Performance or Model Y LR under the cap (admittedly with very little in the way of options), each with well over 300 miles of EPA range.
That turns a ~$3k difference in price to a ~$10k difference in price (presuming the buyer can qualify for and use the tax credit)
A problem for Ford is that only short-range variants are under the $55k cap. For Tesla you can purchase either a Model 3 Performance or Model Y LR under the cap (admittedly with very little in the way of options), each with well over 300 miles of EPA range.
That turns a ~$3k difference in price to a ~$10k difference in price (presuming the buyer can qualify for and use the tax credit)
Not under the current IRS guidelines. Both the Mach-e and Escape are at the $55k cap.A problem for Ford is that only short-range variants are under the $55k cap. For Tesla you can purchase either a Model 3 Performance or Model Y LR under the cap (admittedly with very little in the way of options), each with well over 300 miles of EPA range.
That turns a ~$3k difference in price to a ~$10k difference in price (presuming the buyer can qualify for and use the tax credit)
Isn't the cap for the mach-e $80k because they got it classified as an SUV?
Not under the current IRS guidelines. Both the Mach-e and Escape are at the $55k cap.A problem for Ford is that only short-range variants are under the $55k cap. For Tesla you can purchase either a Model 3 Performance or Model Y LR under the cap (admittedly with very little in the way of options), each with well over 300 miles of EPA range.
That turns a ~$3k difference in price to a ~$10k difference in price (presuming the buyer can qualify for and use the tax credit)
Isn't the cap for the mach-e $80k because they got it classified as an SUV?
...which just further demonstrates how dumb and arbitrary the IRS car/SUV dividing line is. Almost as dumb as the "Model Y isn't an SUV, unless you get the optional kid seats in the back, then it is". Another example: most ID.4 variants have the $55k cap, but if it has AWD it gets the $80k cap. Note that AWD on a Model Y doesn't make it an SUV...
https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/manufacturers-and-models-for-new-qualified-clean-vehicles-purchased-in-2023-or-after
I can't find the reference but read somewhere when the IRS list first came out that weight is the trigger for the $80k cap. If the weight doesn't meet a certain threshold it gets the $55k cap. Adding the seats makes the Model Y heavy enough to qualify. Adding AWD makes the ID.4 heavy enough. Seems pretty dumb, I would think interior volume would be a better metric, but they didn't consult me...Not under the current IRS guidelines. Both the Mach-e and Escape are at the $55k cap.A problem for Ford is that only short-range variants are under the $55k cap. For Tesla you can purchase either a Model 3 Performance or Model Y LR under the cap (admittedly with very little in the way of options), each with well over 300 miles of EPA range.
That turns a ~$3k difference in price to a ~$10k difference in price (presuming the buyer can qualify for and use the tax credit)
Isn't the cap for the mach-e $80k because they got it classified as an SUV?
...which just further demonstrates how dumb and arbitrary the IRS car/SUV dividing line is. Almost as dumb as the "Model Y isn't an SUV, unless you get the optional kid seats in the back, then it is". Another example: most ID.4 variants have the $55k cap, but if it has AWD it gets the $80k cap. Note that AWD on a Model Y doesn't make it an SUV...
https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/manufacturers-and-models-for-new-qualified-clean-vehicles-purchased-in-2023-or-after
Autoblog: Teslas are so expensive to repair, insurers are writing them off (https://www.autoblog.com/2023/01/27/tesla-expensive-to-repair-insurers-writing-off-damaged-cars/), which is driving up insurance for Tesla owners.
What's driving the expense to repair? Is it the one piece frame, the electronics, or something else?
Here's an interesting case of what should have been a simple fix nearly totaling a Model 3: https://www.thedrive.com/news/41493/teslas-16000-quote-for-a-700-fix-is-why-right-to-repair-matters Basically, a flange integrated into the modeled battery pack (instead of a replaceable part) that was cracked by road debris.
Yikes! So are most of these problems caused by poor engineering then?
Autoblog: Teslas are so expensive to repair, insurers are writing them off (https://www.autoblog.com/2023/01/27/tesla-expensive-to-repair-insurers-writing-off-damaged-cars/), which is driving up insurance for Tesla owners.
What's driving the expense to repair? Is it the one piece frame, the electronics, or something else?
Here's an interesting case of what should have been a simple fix nearly totaling a Model 3: https://www.thedrive.com/news/41493/teslas-16000-quote-for-a-700-fix-is-why-right-to-repair-matters Basically, a flange integrated into the modeled battery pack (instead of a replaceable part) that was cracked by road debris.
Yikes! So are most of these problems caused by poor engineering then?
Tesla is quite interesting in this aspect. They develop cars more like software. I.E they push out updates and fixes in real time as they are fixed. They do this with their mechanical systems. So if they find that their door handle mechanism is expensive or breaking a lot, they will update it, change the assembly line and essentially fix it live and whatever month that part becomes available to do so. So if you get an M3 in June it might have different parts in it than if you got one off the same line in July.
Legacy auto for the most part tests and releases cars as whole systems. So if you get a 2023 Colrolla, it will be the same as every other 2023 Corolla. They will make recalls or fixes for safety features, but this is also done to the entire set of vehicles that are recalled.
This has a lot of downline effects. There are some really cools aspects to the Tesla method. Disregarding their questionable stunts with supply line problems with Covid, their cars are continuously improving. So despite ad 2020 M3 looking just like a 2023 one, the 2023 will have many improvements that aren't hampered by model year. They don't have to stick with old designs if their engineers can come up with better ones and can more easily manage supply lines as they don't have to coordinate them as much.
The downsides are also apparent. For those used to working on vehicles, you can usually walk into any auto parts store and tell them your year/make/model of car (and perhaps a trim level), and they will 99% of the time be able to get you the right part for that car. For a Tesla, it's a crapshoot. No one (including Tesla) knows which parts your car has. Sometimes the newer part will fit, sometimes it won't... in 10 years the forums for these cars are going to be full of people just trying to identify model parts to keep them running.
It also effectively makes the customer the tester in Tesla vehicles. Tesla does significantly less testing before releasing a product, and why should they? their customers don't seem to mind! Toyota, GM, etc. all do extensive testing of their vehicles as whole units before releasing them. It's part of the reason they do model years, as when they do updates it is after a series of extensive tests of the product working in different conditions.
I'm a bit torn on which method I think is better for vehicles- I would prefer to be an engineer for Tesla because it would be fun to just make new things without coordinating as much with release dates.
Not under the current IRS guidelines. Both the Mach-e and Escape are at the $55k cap.A problem for Ford is that only short-range variants are under the $55k cap. For Tesla you can purchase either a Model 3 Performance or Model Y LR under the cap (admittedly with very little in the way of options), each with well over 300 miles of EPA range.
That turns a ~$3k difference in price to a ~$10k difference in price (presuming the buyer can qualify for and use the tax credit)
Isn't the cap for the mach-e $80k because they got it classified as an SUV?
...which just further demonstrates how dumb and arbitrary the IRS car/SUV dividing line is. Almost as dumb as the "Model Y isn't an SUV, unless you get the optional kid seats in the back, then it is". Another example: most ID.4 variants have the $55k cap, but if it has AWD it gets the $80k cap. Note that AWD on a Model Y doesn't make it an SUV...
https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/manufacturers-and-models-for-new-qualified-clean-vehicles-purchased-in-2023-or-after
that is a bit crazy!
In the example given, the updated / improved door latch would fit the previous car just fine.Autoblog: Teslas are so expensive to repair, insurers are writing them off (https://www.autoblog.com/2023/01/27/tesla-expensive-to-repair-insurers-writing-off-damaged-cars/), which is driving up insurance for Tesla owners.
What's driving the expense to repair? Is it the one piece frame, the electronics, or something else?
Here's an interesting case of what should have been a simple fix nearly totaling a Model 3: https://www.thedrive.com/news/41493/teslas-16000-quote-for-a-700-fix-is-why-right-to-repair-matters Basically, a flange integrated into the modeled battery pack (instead of a replaceable part) that was cracked by road debris.
Yikes! So are most of these problems caused by poor engineering then?
Tesla is quite interesting in this aspect. They develop cars more like software. I.E they push out updates and fixes in real time as they are fixed. They do this with their mechanical systems. So if they find that their door handle mechanism is expensive or breaking a lot, they will update it, change the assembly line and essentially fix it live and whatever month that part becomes available to do so. So if you get an M3 in June it might have different parts in it than if you got one off the same line in July.
Legacy auto for the most part tests and releases cars as whole systems. So if you get a 2023 Colrolla, it will be the same as every other 2023 Corolla. They will make recalls or fixes for safety features, but this is also done to the entire set of vehicles that are recalled.
This has a lot of downline effects. There are some really cools aspects to the Tesla method. Disregarding their questionable stunts with supply line problems with Covid, their cars are continuously improving. So despite ad 2020 M3 looking just like a 2023 one, the 2023 will have many improvements that aren't hampered by model year. They don't have to stick with old designs if their engineers can come up with better ones and can more easily manage supply lines as they don't have to coordinate them as much.
The downsides are also apparent. For those used to working on vehicles, you can usually walk into any auto parts store and tell them your year/make/model of car (and perhaps a trim level), and they will 99% of the time be able to get you the right part for that car. For a Tesla, it's a crapshoot. No one (including Tesla) knows which parts your car has. Sometimes the newer part will fit, sometimes it won't... in 10 years the forums for these cars are going to be full of people just trying to identify model parts to keep them running.
It also effectively makes the customer the tester in Tesla vehicles. Tesla does significantly less testing before releasing a product, and why should they? their customers don't seem to mind! Toyota, GM, etc. all do extensive testing of their vehicles as whole units before releasing them. It's part of the reason they do model years, as when they do updates it is after a series of extensive tests of the product working in different conditions.
I'm a bit torn on which method I think is better for vehicles- I would prefer to be an engineer for Tesla because it would be fun to just make new things without coordinating as much with release dates.
Downside seems pretty significantly to outweigh the benefit. I've been driving the same car for coming up on 20 years now. Couldn't do that without readily available spare parts. I don't care if my door latch works 3% better than the previous door latch . . . if my door will no longer shut and I can't replace the part ten years from now. Seems like a terrible vehicle to own if you're interested in longevity then?
If their car becomes effectively disposable because of a lack of available parts, does that mean that in the long run Teslas will end up worse for the environment than ICE vehicles?
I can't find the reference but read somewhere when the IRS list first came out that weight is the trigger for the $80k cap. If the weight doesn't meet a certain threshold it gets the $55k cap. Adding the seats makes the Model Y heavy enough to qualify. Adding AWD makes the ID.4 heavy enough. Seems pretty dumb, I would think interior volume would be a better metric, but they didn't consult me...It's more complicated than that. Having a 3rd row of seating is what triggers the "SUV" category for Model Y. The 6k lb is a different part of how a vehicle can qualify for being an SUV. The Model Y is ~4500 lbs - not even close to the 6k
Autoblog: Teslas are so expensive to repair, insurers are writing them off (https://www.autoblog.com/2023/01/27/tesla-expensive-to-repair-insurers-writing-off-damaged-cars/), which is driving up insurance for Tesla owners.
What's driving the expense to repair? Is it the one piece frame, the electronics, or something else?
Here's an interesting case of what should have been a simple fix nearly totaling a Model 3: https://www.thedrive.com/news/41493/teslas-16000-quote-for-a-700-fix-is-why-right-to-repair-matters Basically, a flange integrated into the modeled battery pack (instead of a replaceable part) that was cracked by road debris.
Yikes! So are most of these problems caused by poor engineering then?
Tesla is quite interesting in this aspect. They develop cars more like software. I.E they push out updates and fixes in real time as they are fixed. They do this with their mechanical systems. So if they find that their door handle mechanism is expensive or breaking a lot, they will update it, change the assembly line and essentially fix it live and whatever month that part becomes available to do so. So if you get an M3 in June it might have different parts in it than if you got one off the same line in July.
Legacy auto for the most part tests and releases cars as whole systems. So if you get a 2023 Colrolla, it will be the same as every other 2023 Corolla. They will make recalls or fixes for safety features, but this is also done to the entire set of vehicles that are recalled.
This has a lot of downline effects. There are some really cools aspects to the Tesla method. Disregarding their questionable stunts with supply line problems with Covid, their cars are continuously improving. So despite ad 2020 M3 looking just like a 2023 one, the 2023 will have many improvements that aren't hampered by model year. They don't have to stick with old designs if their engineers can come up with better ones and can more easily manage supply lines as they don't have to coordinate them as much.
The downsides are also apparent. For those used to working on vehicles, you can usually walk into any auto parts store and tell them your year/make/model of car (and perhaps a trim level), and they will 99% of the time be able to get you the right part for that car. For a Tesla, it's a crapshoot. No one (including Tesla) knows which parts your car has. Sometimes the newer part will fit, sometimes it won't... in 10 years the forums for these cars are going to be full of people just trying to identify model parts to keep them running.
It also effectively makes the customer the tester in Tesla vehicles. Tesla does significantly less testing before releasing a product, and why should they? their customers don't seem to mind! Toyota, GM, etc. all do extensive testing of their vehicles as whole units before releasing them. It's part of the reason they do model years, as when they do updates it is after a series of extensive tests of the product working in different conditions.
I'm a bit torn on which method I think is better for vehicles- I would prefer to be an engineer for Tesla because it would be fun to just make new things without coordinating as much with release dates.
Downside seems pretty significantly to outweigh the benefit. I've been driving the same car for coming up on 20 years now. Couldn't do that without readily available spare parts. I don't care if my door latch works 3% better than the previous door latch . . . if my door will no longer shut and I can't replace the part ten years from now. Seems like a terrible vehicle to own if you're interested in longevity then?
If their car becomes effectively disposable because of a lack of available parts, does that mean that in the long run Teslas will end up worse for the environment than ICE vehicles?
Telsa should be keeping those records.
... you can usually walk into any auto parts store and tell them your year/make/model of car (and perhaps a trim level), and they will 99% of the time be able to get you the right part for that car. For a Tesla, it's a crapshoot. No one (including Tesla) knows which parts your car has.
Tesla does significantly less testing before releasing a product, and why should they?
Telsa should be keeping those records.
Agreed!
But . . . are they keeping those records? Where can I find them online to search through for when I need to find information about my Tesla?
It was stashingaway who indicated in his post that Tesla did not have these records.
While stashingaways point about updated parts fitting is good, in cases where that is not the case, and while year/make/model won't identify the off the factory floor config, the vin number should be able to locate that. Telsa should be keeping those records.Tesla has those records. In addition - changing out the version of a part used in the production line doesn't mean that you have to replace it with that exact part.Typically either the prior or current part (or possibly later part) will work fine.
Telsa should be keeping those records.
Agreed!
But . . . are they keeping those records? Where can I find them online to search through for when I need to find information about my Tesla?
It was stashingaway who indicated in his post that Tesla did not have these records.
... you can usually walk into any auto parts store and tell them your year/make/model of car (and perhaps a trim level), and they will 99% of the time be able to get you the right part for that car. For a Tesla, it's a crapshoot. No one (including Tesla) knows which parts your car has.
Is this your speculation that Tesla doesn't know which parts your car has or you have proof? Car makers are required to track part numbers by VIN's for proper recalls.
Tesla does significantly less testing before releasing a product, and why should they?
Another speculation of yours? Do you have data to back it up?
Tesla may have the records themselves, but I doubt it's easy to get them or make sense of them.It's not just a Tesla problem (though they may be more problematic than most in this regard) - my Hyundai had one of two incompatible oxygen sensor/connection sets which needed replacing. Most online resources were lies (pretending there was only one for the model year). None of the 3rd parties (Rock Auto, Auto Zone, O'Reilley, Amazon, etc) could answer definitively which I had.
Replacement parts speculation? Is this the downfall of Tesla? Haha.
For real investment considerations: the CFO implied they are going to expand their financing wing on the Q4 call. ~1/3 of most other car manufacturer operating income comes from financing their vehicles. Tesla is just getting started here already at 16% operating margin. The CFO also said the Insurance product is growing 20% per quarter which was interesting. As these other products including energy (Megapack) ramp, he guided that operating margin is the focus now instead auto GM. Said Auto GM would stay above 20% for 2023, but support and expansion to OM will come from other products and services.
Replacement parts speculation? Is this the downfall of Tesla? Haha.
For real investment considerations: the CFO implied they are going to expand their financing wing on the Q4 call. ~1/3 of most other car manufacturer operating income comes from financing their vehicles. Tesla is just getting started here already at 16% operating margin. The CFO also said the Insurance product is growing 20% per quarter which was interesting. As these other products including energy (Megapack) ramp, he guided that operating margin is the focus now instead auto GM. Said Auto GM would stay above 20% for 2023, but support and expansion to OM will come from other products and services.
I don't care at all about Tesla as a company. I care about whether or not the products will be good for me long term as a consumer, and whether or not the environmental rebates that my tax dollars are paying for are being well spent on a vehicle that may need to be scrapped much sooner than expected due to bad engineering decisions.
Replacement parts speculation? Is this the downfall of Tesla? Haha.
For real investment considerations: the CFO implied they are going to expand their financing wing on the Q4 call. ~1/3 of most other car manufacturer operating income comes from financing their vehicles. Tesla is just getting started here already at 16% operating margin. The CFO also said the Insurance product is growing 20% per quarter which was interesting. As these other products including energy (Megapack) ramp, he guided that operating margin is the focus now instead auto GM. Said Auto GM would stay above 20% for 2023, but support and expansion to OM will come from other products and services.
I don't care at all about Tesla as a company. I care about whether or not the products will be good for me long term as a consumer, and whether or not the environmental rebates that my tax dollars are paying for are being well spent on a vehicle that may need to be scrapped much sooner than expected due to bad engineering decisions.
Are you considering a tesla purchase? Because that did not seem to be in your plans to me.
Replacement parts speculation? Is this the downfall of Tesla? Haha.
For real investment considerations: the CFO implied they are going to expand their financing wing on the Q4 call. ~1/3 of most other car manufacturer operating income comes from financing their vehicles. Tesla is just getting started here already at 16% operating margin. The CFO also said the Insurance product is growing 20% per quarter which was interesting. As these other products including energy (Megapack) ramp, he guided that operating margin is the focus now instead auto GM. Said Auto GM would stay above 20% for 2023, but support and expansion to OM will come from other products and services.
I don't care at all about Tesla as a company. I care about whether or not the products will be good for me long term as a consumer, and whether or not the environmental rebates that my tax dollars are paying for are being well spent on a vehicle that may need to be scrapped much sooner than expected due to bad engineering decisions.
Are you considering a tesla purchase? Because that did not seem to be in your plans to me.
In the immediate future? No. I'm hoping to get 25 years out of my corolla. But it seems likely that I'll need a car at some point, and Tesla is one of the biggest automobile manufacturers in electric cars (which seem to be the more environmentally friendly option).
This is off topic - a few folks on this forum like to drive their corolla's or camry's for 20 or more years. While that is good for your pocket, consider that car safety standards have improved a great deal in recent years - better crumble zone, better structural integrity due to different mixes of metals, some cars have side airbags, etc. To better protect the driver and passengers, it's a good idea to upgrade to a more recent car.
Patel drove Neha, their 7-year-old daughter and 4-year-old son off the cliff at Devil’s Slide, a notoriously dangerous portion of Highway 1 about 15 miles south of San Francisco. The car tumbled 250 to 300 feet, with authorities describing the family’s rescue as an “absolute miracle.”
This is off topic - a few folks on this forum like to drive their corolla's or camry's for 20 or more years. While that is good for your pocket, consider that car safety standards have improved a great deal in recent years - better crumble zone, better structural integrity due to different mixes of metals, some cars have side airbags, etc. To better protect the driver and passengers, it's a good idea to upgrade to a more recent car.
Male drivers were involved in 34% of fatal crashes in 2016, while female drivers were involved in 12%. (USDOT, 2017) (https://driving-tests.org/driving-statistics/ (https://driving-tests.org/driving-statistics/))
Replacement parts speculation? Is this the downfall of Tesla? Haha.
For real investment considerations: the CFO implied they are going to expand their financing wing on the Q4 call. ~1/3 of most other car manufacturer operating income comes from financing their vehicles. Tesla is just getting started here already at 16% operating margin. The CFO also said the Insurance product is growing 20% per quarter which was interesting. As these other products including energy (Megapack) ramp, he guided that operating margin is the focus now instead auto GM. Said Auto GM would stay above 20% for 2023, but support and expansion to OM will come from other products and services.
I don't care at all about Tesla as a company. I care about whether or not the products will be good for me long term as a consumer, and whether or not the environmental rebates that my tax dollars are paying for are being well spent on a vehicle that may need to be scrapped much sooner than expected due to bad engineering decisions.
Are you considering a tesla purchase? Because that did not seem to be in your plans to me.
Honestly, I'm just not sure what to do with all this weird stuff in this thread. "Is tesla a good investment?" And oh - the insurance is too much, can't find what repair parts are needed, someone else has a new car to compete, this blogger isn't getting good customer service......my aunt's second cousin's inlaw was going to buy a tesla and decided not to.......
what on earth does all of that have to do with "Is tesla a good investment?". Just seems like tesla permabears google up whatever negative info they can find and barf it on the thread. It is not anything that answers the question at all.
Replacement parts speculation? Is this the downfall of Tesla? Haha.
For real investment considerations: the CFO implied they are going to expand their financing wing on the Q4 call. ~1/3 of most other car manufacturer operating income comes from financing their vehicles. Tesla is just getting started here already at 16% operating margin. The CFO also said the Insurance product is growing 20% per quarter which was interesting. As these other products including energy (Megapack) ramp, he guided that operating margin is the focus now instead auto GM. Said Auto GM would stay above 20% for 2023, but support and expansion to OM will come from other products and services.
I don't care at all about Tesla as a company. I care about whether or not the products will be good for me long term as a consumer, and whether or not the environmental rebates that my tax dollars are paying for are being well spent on a vehicle that may need to be scrapped much sooner than expected due to bad engineering decisions.
Are you considering a tesla purchase? Because that did not seem to be in your plans to me.
Honestly, I'm just not sure what to do with all this weird stuff in this thread. "Is tesla a good investment?" And oh - the insurance is too much, can't find what repair parts are needed, someone else has a new car to compete, this blogger isn't getting good customer service......my aunt's second cousin's inlaw was going to buy a tesla and decided not to.......
what on earth does all of that have to do with "Is tesla a good investment?". Just seems like tesla permabears google up whatever negative info they can find and barf it on the thread. It is not anything that answers the question at all.
They have a lot of concerns, the concerns shift over the months and years, but they will always be concerned.
Also because I couldn't find another place to put this and it made me laugh -QuoteMale drivers were involved in 34% of fatal crashes in 2016, while female drivers were involved in 12%. (USDOT, 2017) (https://driving-tests.org/driving-statistics/ (https://driving-tests.org/driving-statistics/))
So 54% of fatal crashes were apparently caused by driverless cars and or gender neutral people. :P
Although I think its a bad decision overall, Model Y now qualifies as SUV for rebate. So now tax dollars incentivize Model Y purchases up to $80,000 instead of $55,000. Wonder how much larger of an effect this will have on Tesla sales/profits/share price.
Ugg, with the $55,000 cap, at least it somewhat forced Tesla to bring prices down significantly. This resulted in Ford following suit soon thereafter dropping prices on Mustang Mach-E ev's. Which of course will lead/has lead to used EV's dropping in value/price.
But now we are using tax payer money to encourage people to buy bigger, less efficient, more wasteful, giant luxury $80,000 SUV's. So much for the inflation reduction component of the IRA.
I'm (almost) all in on index funds, but damn I wish I'd bought all the share I could afford when it dropped to $102. I felt like that was a ridiculously mispriced drop in share price, and speculate that Tesla has potential, as previously stated, to become the biggest and most profitable company in the world. Oh well, gotta run, time to buy some more FXAIX :)
Although I think its a bad decision overall, Model Y now qualifies as SUV for rebate. So now tax dollars incentivize Model Y purchases up to $80,000 instead of $55,000. Wonder how much larger of an effect this will have on Tesla sales/profits/share price.
Ugg, with the $55,000 cap, at least it somewhat forced Tesla to bring prices down significantly. This resulted in Ford following suit soon thereafter dropping prices on Mustang Mach-E ev's. Which of course will lead/has lead to used EV's dropping in value/price.
But now we are using tax payer money to encourage people to buy bigger, less efficient, more wasteful, giant luxury $80,000 SUV's. So much for the inflation reduction component of the IRA.
I'm (almost) all in on index funds, but damn I wish I'd bought all the share I could afford when it dropped to $102. I felt like that was a ridiculously mispriced drop in share price, and speculate that Tesla has potential, as previously stated, to become the biggest and most profitable company in the world. Oh well, gotta run, time to buy some more FXAIX :)
Although I think its a bad decision overall, Model Y now qualifies as SUV for rebate. So now tax dollars incentivize Model Y purchases up to $80,000 instead of $55,000. Wonder how much larger of an effect this will have on Tesla sales/profits/share price.
Ugg, with the $55,000 cap, at least it somewhat forced Tesla to bring prices down significantly. This resulted in Ford following suit soon thereafter dropping prices on Mustang Mach-E ev's. Which of course will lead/has lead to used EV's dropping in value/price.
But now we are using tax payer money to encourage people to buy bigger, less efficient, more wasteful, giant luxury $80,000 SUV's. So much for the inflation reduction component of the IRA.
I'm (almost) all in on index funds, but damn I wish I'd bought all the share I could afford when it dropped to $102. I felt like that was a ridiculously mispriced drop in share price, and speculate that Tesla has potential, as previously stated, to become the biggest and most profitable company in the world. Oh well, gotta run, time to buy some more FXAIX :)
The real issue with the IRA, as it relates to EVs, it that it incentivizes plug-in hybrid vehicles with tiny batteries the same as EVs. Hybrids are going to become quickly obsolete. There’s no reason to promote them, except as a gift to legacy autos. I’d much rather subsidize an $80k, fully electric vehicle, than a PHEV that unnecessarily delays our transition away from oil.
As for Tesla, they have a win-win choice now. They can keep their current pricing and continue to squeeze their competition by forcing them to drop prices they can’t afford to drop and capture market share in the process. Or, they can raise prices and increase profits. I suspect Tesla won’t raise prices, at least not drastically, at this time. They will continue to produce as many cars as fast as they can and adjust pricing to manage demand. If the backlog reaches 3 months or more, they’ll start raising prices again. My guess is we’ll see some prices increase before the end of the quarter.
Although I think its a bad decision overall, Model Y now qualifies as SUV for rebate. So now tax dollars incentivize Model Y purchases up to $80,000 instead of $55,000. Wonder how much larger of an effect this will have on Tesla sales/profits/share price.
Ugg, with the $55,000 cap, at least it somewhat forced Tesla to bring prices down significantly. This resulted in Ford following suit soon thereafter dropping prices on Mustang Mach-E ev's. Which of course will lead/has lead to used EV's dropping in value/price.
But now we are using tax payer money to encourage people to buy bigger, less efficient, more wasteful, giant luxury $80,000 SUV's. So much for the inflation reduction component of the IRA.
I'm (almost) all in on index funds, but damn I wish I'd bought all the share I could afford when it dropped to $102. I felt like that was a ridiculously mispriced drop in share price, and speculate that Tesla has potential, as previously stated, to become the biggest and most profitable company in the world. Oh well, gotta run, time to buy some more FXAIX :)
The real issue with the IRA, as it relates to EVs, it that it incentivizes plug-in hybrid vehicles with tiny batteries the same as EVs. Hybrids are going to become quickly obsolete. There’s no reason to promote them, except as a gift to legacy autos. I’d much rather subsidize an $80k, fully electric vehicle, than a PHEV that unnecessarily delays our transition away from oil.
As for Tesla, they have a win-win choice now. They can keep their current pricing and continue to squeeze their competition by forcing them to drop prices they can’t afford to drop and capture market share in the process. Or, they can raise prices and increase profits. I suspect Tesla won’t raise prices, at least not drastically, at this time. They will continue to produce as many cars as fast as they can and adjust pricing to manage demand. If the backlog reaches 3 months or more, they’ll start raising prices again. My guess is we’ll see some prices increase before the end of the quarter.
first paragraph - hopefully the consumer base that is interested in the environment will help here
second paragraph - I don't think raising prices back up will be at all helpful to the brand. One of the great things about the tesla model was the no haggle, this is the price thing. People will start to speculate about when "sales" might come up and delay purchasing, etc. Although I'm still a bit peeved about getting caught on the wrong side of the savings, I don't think swinging prices up and down will be good for the brand.
Although I think its a bad decision overall, Model Y now qualifies as SUV for rebate. So now tax dollars incentivize Model Y purchases up to $80,000 instead of $55,000. Wonder how much larger of an effect this will have on Tesla sales/profits/share price.
Ugg, with the $55,000 cap, at least it somewhat forced Tesla to bring prices down significantly. This resulted in Ford following suit soon thereafter dropping prices on Mustang Mach-E ev's. Which of course will lead/has lead to used EV's dropping in value/price.
But now we are using tax payer money to encourage people to buy bigger, less efficient, more wasteful, giant luxury $80,000 SUV's. So much for the inflation reduction component of the IRA.
I'm (almost) all in on index funds, but damn I wish I'd bought all the share I could afford when it dropped to $102. I felt like that was a ridiculously mispriced drop in share price, and speculate that Tesla has potential, as previously stated, to become the biggest and most profitable company in the world. Oh well, gotta run, time to buy some more FXAIX :)
The real issue with the IRA, as it relates to EVs, it that it incentivizes plug-in hybrid vehicles with tiny batteries the same as EVs. Hybrids are going to become quickly obsolete. There’s no reason to promote them, except as a gift to legacy autos. I’d much rather subsidize an $80k, fully electric vehicle, than a PHEV that unnecessarily delays our transition away from oil.
As for Tesla, they have a win-win choice now. They can keep their current pricing and continue to squeeze their competition by forcing them to drop prices they can’t afford to drop and capture market share in the process. Or, they can raise prices and increase profits. I suspect Tesla won’t raise prices, at least not drastically, at this time. They will continue to produce as many cars as fast as they can and adjust pricing to manage demand. If the backlog reaches 3 months or more, they’ll start raising prices again. My guess is we’ll see some prices increase before the end of the quarter.
first paragraph - hopefully the consumer base that is interested in the environment will help here
second paragraph - I don't think raising prices back up will be at all helpful to the brand. One of the great things about the tesla model was the no haggle, this is the price thing. People will start to speculate about when "sales" might come up and delay purchasing, etc. Although I'm still a bit peeved about getting caught on the wrong side of the savings, I don't think swinging prices up and down will be good for the brand.
First paragraph - agree, and hopefully folks will also realize that PHEV represent the worst of both worlds and at an unneeded price premium.
Second Paragraph - Fair point. However, I would argue the greater risk to the brand is having a long wait time to get your vehicle. Adjusting prices is primarily meant to manage demand or put another way, manage wait times. People in the car market often need a car in a matter of days or weeks and not months. They were in an accident, relocated, had a baby, their old car died or was stolen...you get the idea. While anticipation of a price cut might lead folks to delay a Tesla purchase, this works both ways, and folks might rush to lock in prices once they see Tesla reversing course and starting to raise prices. Finally, folks will hopefully realize the real economic benefit of an EV is the low total cost of ownership, which takes some of the stress off of getting the best purchase price, if you’re looking to own for a long time.
Although I think its a bad decision overall, Model Y now qualifies as SUV for rebate. So now tax dollars incentivize Model Y purchases up to $80,000 instead of $55,000. Wonder how much larger of an effect this will have on Tesla sales/profits/share price.
Ugg, with the $55,000 cap, at least it somewhat forced Tesla to bring prices down significantly. This resulted in Ford following suit soon thereafter dropping prices on Mustang Mach-E ev's. Which of course will lead/has lead to used EV's dropping in value/price.
But now we are using tax payer money to encourage people to buy bigger, less efficient, more wasteful, giant luxury $80,000 SUV's. So much for the inflation reduction component of the IRA.
I'm (almost) all in on index funds, but damn I wish I'd bought all the share I could afford when it dropped to $102. I felt like that was a ridiculously mispriced drop in share price, and speculate that Tesla has potential, as previously stated, to become the biggest and most profitable company in the world. Oh well, gotta run, time to buy some more FXAIX :)
The real issue with the IRA, as it relates to EVs, it that it incentivizes plug-in hybrid vehicles with tiny batteries the same as EVs. Hybrids are going to become quickly obsolete. There’s no reason to promote them, except as a gift to legacy autos. I’d much rather subsidize an $80k, fully electric vehicle, than a PHEV that unnecessarily delays our transition away from oil.
As for Tesla, they have a win-win choice now. They can keep their current pricing and continue to squeeze their competition by forcing them to drop prices they can’t afford to drop and capture market share in the process. Or, they can raise prices and increase profits. I suspect Tesla won’t raise prices, at least not drastically, at this time. They will continue to produce as many cars as fast as they can and adjust pricing to manage demand. If the backlog reaches 3 months or more, they’ll start raising prices again. My guess is we’ll see some prices increase before the end of the quarter.
first paragraph - hopefully the consumer base that is interested in the environment will help here
second paragraph - I don't think raising prices back up will be at all helpful to the brand. One of the great things about the tesla model was the no haggle, this is the price thing. People will start to speculate about when "sales" might come up and delay purchasing, etc. Although I'm still a bit peeved about getting caught on the wrong side of the savings, I don't think swinging prices up and down will be good for the brand.
First paragraph - agree, and hopefully folks will also realize that PHEV represent the worst of both worlds and at an unneeded price premium.
Second Paragraph - Fair point. However, I would argue the greater risk to the brand is having a long wait time to get your vehicle. Adjusting prices is primarily meant to manage demand or put another way, manage wait times. People in the car market often need a car in a matter of days or weeks and not months. They were in an accident, relocated, had a baby, their old car died or was stolen...you get the idea. While anticipation of a price cut might lead folks to delay a Tesla purchase, this works both ways, and folks might rush to lock in prices once they see Tesla reversing course and starting to raise prices. Finally, folks will hopefully realize the real economic benefit of an EV is the low total cost of ownership, which takes some of the stress off of getting the best purchase price, if you’re looking to own for a long time.
we'll just have to see how they handle it! I was unbothered by wait times, more impacted by price, but of course just one data point.
I do like to think that if they can make it more affordable and get more people into EVs sooner rather than later, that that is good for the company and the planet.
Totally off topic in terms of investment but my family just bought a model Y and it’s a pretty big vehicle; having one now it seems ridiculous it was not classified as an SUV initially.
I realize it’s not”mustachian” but we wanted to get something nice and we can afford it.
We have two cars in the family and typically try to keep them 20 years. Our old car was 19, and the new car 9, so we were about due. We traded in the 2004 Accord for a Tesla.
Previously we were a Honda family as I liked the reliability. When the Tesla Y dropped 13k to get under the tax credit I pulled the trigger and got one. I believe the future in cars is and should be EVs.
Have had the Tesla Y a week and enjoying it so far.
Have to say we are surprised how big it is. Our other car is a Honda CRV which I always thought of as an SUV. I knew the Y was slightly bigger because I researched, but in person it’s way bigger than our 2014 CRV.
So net- it’s absolutely SUV size. But I’m grateful the IRS initial weird decision brought the price down to 53k to get under the non SUV tax credit cap as that saved me money.
Not under the current IRS guidelines. Both the Mach-e and Escape are at the $55k cap.A problem for Ford is that only short-range variants are under the $55k cap. For Tesla you can purchase either a Model 3 Performance or Model Y LR under the cap (admittedly with very little in the way of options), each with well over 300 miles of EPA range.
That turns a ~$3k difference in price to a ~$10k difference in price (presuming the buyer can qualify for and use the tax credit)
Isn't the cap for the mach-e $80k because they got it classified as an SUV?
...which just further demonstrates how dumb and arbitrary the IRS car/SUV dividing line is. Almost as dumb as the "Model Y isn't an SUV, unless you get the optional kid seats in the back, then it is". Another example: most ID.4 variants have the $55k cap, but if it has AWD it gets the $80k cap. Note that AWD on a Model Y doesn't make it an SUV...
https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/manufacturers-and-models-for-new-qualified-clean-vehicles-purchased-in-2023-or-after
that is a bit crazy!
So we already had federal laws and regulations defining what an SUV was (NHTSA, etc) and now we have a different definition for tax purposes... Kind of OT but I refuse to vote for any of these clowns. Not to mention the horrible incentive to make heavier cars that do more damage to the roads and carry more kinetic energy into crashes. Very weird market incentives that will impact this investing decision.
We've considered the Y with the third row kid seats, but my concern is that in 10 years the kids won't fit in the kid seats anymore. With an ICE car I would be less concerned, but I (maybe erroneously) think of electrics as items I want to last 20+ years.
For now we're good with the Leaf but the ICE Suburban that gets driven once every 2-3 weeks has gotta go soon. If we could find a big EV that would fit everyone and checked all the boxes I'd probably sell both and jump on it.
-W
We have the 3rd row seat in the Y. They wouldn't fit comfortably grown. It works, especially around town, but on a road trip, that third row is only good for little kids. Not many out there with space for larger families. There's the Rivian R1S, but it's soooo pricey. I assume my Y will last 20 years, but it's not proven. Haven't had any issues so far at 1. 19 to go, haha.
We have the 3rd row seat in the Y. They wouldn't fit comfortably grown. It works, especially around town, but on a road trip, that third row is only good for little kids. Not many out there with space for larger families. There's the Rivian R1S, but it's soooo pricey. I assume my Y will last 20 years, but it's not proven. Haven't had any issues so far at 1. 19 to go, haha.
Good to know. I wish someone would make an electric minivan or station wagon. But nobody has kids anymore, so I understand why those sort of items aren't a high priority.
The Pacifica hybrid is pretty cool but I'd rather be done with gasoline completely.
-W
We have the 3rd row seat in the Y. They wouldn't fit comfortably grown. It works, especially around town, but on a road trip, that third row is only good for little kids. Not many out there with space for larger families. There's the Rivian R1S, but it's soooo pricey. I assume my Y will last 20 years, but it's not proven. Haven't had any issues so far at 1. 19 to go, haha.
Good to know. I wish someone would make an electric minivan or station wagon. But nobody has kids anymore, so I understand why those sort of items aren't a high priority.
The Pacifica hybrid is pretty cool but I'd rather be done with gasoline completely.
-W
Three school-aged children here too. Planning to hold onto our 2012 Odyssey for a while because it will be a while before there is a good electric alternative and I’m done buying gas or hybrid vehicles.
I found this a bit shocking:
Tesla made more profit than Ford and GM combined in 2022. Now imagine they come even remotely close to continuing 50% annual growth for some years to come.....it's hard to imagine that they just sold their first Model S less than 11 years ago.
I found this a bit shocking:
Tesla made more profit than Ford and GM combined in 2022. Now imagine they come even remotely close to continuing 50% annual growth for some years to come.....it's hard to imagine that they just sold their first Model S less than 11 years ago.
Yep, Tesla made more profit than GM and Ford combined in 2022, selling half as many vehicles.
Got no real axe to grind in this one, but it's clear that the Tesla bubble has burst now. As impressive as Tesla's growth has been, the market is clearly indication that a sharp slowdown is now baked in.
Piper Sandler estimates the price cuts in China and Australia will cost around $0.60 to 2023 EPS. Not the end of the world for sure, and that can be made up in other ways. It’s massive pressure on BYD and OEM manufacturers who already have thin margins and need volume.
I’m seeing megapack margins are somewhere at 50% based on the material/ battery sizes. If that’s true, at capacity, that’s $2.90 addition to EPS. That’s insane. 50% growth in earnings in 2024 from megapack alone. 20 Forward P/E is too cheap. With a Beta of 2, I can see how forward PE is compressed so far, but only auto is being priced with 40% growth.
Mega caps growing earnings so fast is super rare.
Yep, something has to give, the disconnect is too strong right now to be sustained.
https://twitter.com/piloly/status/1611482719468376080
A redesign or new model has got to be announced and with a defined timeline. None of this "sometime this year (probably)" BS.
Tesla's 2023 sales in China (their #2 market) are pretty anemic and, without a redesign or a lower priced model, they may not see any growth there this year. The Shanghai factory is closing down in March for "upgrades," which is encouraging.
A redesign or new model has got to be announced and with a defined timeline. None of this "sometime this year (probably)" BS.
Tesla's 2023 sales in China (their #2 market) are pretty anemic and, without a redesign or a lower priced model, they may not see any growth there this year. The Shanghai factory is closing down in March for "upgrades," which is encouraging.
So you're "pre-concerned" heading into any positive announcements that come out of Investor Day?
A redesign or new model has got to be announced and with a defined timeline. None of this "sometime this year (probably)" BS.
Tesla's 2023 sales in China (their #2 market) are pretty anemic and, without a redesign or a lower priced model, they may not see any growth there this year. The Shanghai factory is closing down in March for "upgrades," which is encouraging.
So you're "pre-concerned" heading into any positive announcements that come out of Investor Day?
From what I wrote, what do you disagree with?
Do you not agree that Tesla has to announce a new model or redesign?
Do you not agree that, so far this year, Tesla's sales in China aren't looking so hot compared to their growth projections?
Do you not agree that Tesla is shutting down their Shanghai factory for updates?
Not going to spend my time arguing with someone who is clearly not looking for honest debate, but rather to constantly throw shade on Tesla.
An uber-consumerist friend hit a pothole in their 6-month old Model 3, damaging 2 tires.
Replacement of those 2 tires is going to cost $1100. Gawd fucking forbid if any of the wheels are dinged or bent.
Their Tesla has not turned out to be a good investment.
I’d summarize, but Rob Mauer of Tesla Daily does an admirable job of putting Ford’s EV financials into context relative to what Tesla has accomplished. One nugget though, Ford grew wholesale EV sales 58% in 2022 over 2021, but increased EBIT losses from 900 million in 2021 to 1.9 billion in 2022. That 1.9 billion is more than Tesla lost in any year of it’s existence even during it’s most difficult years of ramping the Model 3. Imagine the difficulties for Ford over the next few years as their ICE sales and profits start eroding at the same time Ford is hemorrhaging cash to ramp up EVs. It’s going to get worse for Ford before it gets better.I ascribe Ford's losses to ramping up EV production. Ford needs to catch up to Tesla faster than Tesla reached this point. Essentially: fast or cheap - pick one.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine sent an oil shock around the world in 2022. Gasoline prices skyrocketed without warning, which meant EVs solved an important problem. I would guess EV market share hit double digits, and will show up in news headlines when 2022 data is available.
That would not have impacted most of the top 10 car buying countries, only 2 of which are in the EU.Russia's invasion of Ukraine sent an oil shock around the world in 2022. Gasoline prices skyrocketed without warning, which meant EVs solved an important problem. I would guess EV market share hit double digits, and will show up in news headlines when 2022 data is available.Didn't natural gas prices skyrocket as much if not more, which the EU uses to generate electricity? In fact, the EU passed measures to reduce electricity usage last fall because of the crisis.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2500/crude-oil-vs-natural-gas-chart
Europeans tend to use MUCH MUCH less electricity than Americans. Air conditioning is almost unheard of.
Europeans tend to use MUCH MUCH less electricity than Americans. Air conditioning is almost unheard of.
Is this just mostly a climate thing though? I mean, here in Toronto we hit about 12 days each summer where temperatures are above 30 C with pretty high humidity (usually a humidex of well into the 40). And that's up here in Canada, it's got to be significantly warmer in much of the southern US. Doing a quick Google search, it looks like the UK doesn't often hits days at 30 Celsius. In the past ten years or so Germany and France are starting to have more and more heat waves with temperatures above 30, and it's causing a lot of concern.
My suspicion is that as hot temperatures become more similar to that experienced in North America you're going to see a lot more A/C usage in Europe, regardless of the costs. 30 C with any humidity at all is very difficult to work at all in.
That would not have impacted most of the top 10 car buying countries, only 2 of which are in the EU.Russia's invasion of Ukraine sent an oil shock around the world in 2022. Gasoline prices skyrocketed without warning, which meant EVs solved an important problem. I would guess EV market share hit double digits, and will show up in news headlines when 2022 data is available.Didn't natural gas prices skyrocket as much if not more, which the EU uses to generate electricity? In fact, the EU passed measures to reduce electricity usage last fall because of the crisis.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2500/crude-oil-vs-natural-gas-chart
https://www.factorywarrantylist.com/car-sales-by-country.html
Germany relied on Nord Stream 1 and 2 for Russian LNG, and I imagine some neighbors (Denmark, The Netherlands) did as well. Poland didn't trust Russia, and had an LNG terminal to receive shipments, which could explain why their natural gas prices were half of Germany's in mid 2022. Even in the EU, the impact varied.
https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/Poland/natural_gas_prices/
Hmm, well ok, maybe it is increasing. I mean, my first hand knowledge is only based on about the 7 or so households of family that I personally know. But from the 20 or so Germans I do know, it's a cultural norm to *not* have AC, and in fact be opposed to considering it. They actively dislike AC and think it makes them sick.
Again, I won't argue against factual statistics that show AC adoption is increasing. But, forecasting that AC use will double by 2050 seems a bit of a stretch of a forecast since that is nearly 30 years out, and AC is less than 10% in Europe. From what I've seen in Germany in particular, its WAY less then 10%. Even if it does double, that's still a pretty low number. I've actually never seen a house in Germany with AC. My wife was born and raised there up until age 20 and she literally does not know of a single person with AC in their house. Not one. So, AFAIK, it's *extremely* rare, at least in Germany. I can't speak for the rest of Europe.
From June to August 2022, persistent heatwaves affected parts of Europe, causing evacuations and over 20,000 heat-related deaths, making these heat waves the deadliest meteorological events in 2022. The highest temperature recorded was 47.0 °C (116.6 °F) in Pinhão, Portugal, on 14 July.
When all of a sudden a car is able to make $ for you by picking & dropping off passengers via a software update, all Teslas in the world will appreciate in value to a magnitude the world has never seen in the world of technology. $TSLA
Solar seems to be not as common in Europe. Europeans tend to use MUCH MUCH less electricity than Americans. Air conditioning is almost unheard of. Electric rates are quite high so EV's tend to not offer much cost savings despite high gas prices. There aren't really any 15 mpg clown SUV/Pickups over there though..small, fuel efficient sedans and hatchbacks are the norm.
Now - this seems a little far fetched to me! Off the twitterverse...QuoteWhen all of a sudden a car is able to make $ for you by picking & dropping off passengers via a software update, all Teslas in the world will appreciate in value to a magnitude the world has never seen in the world of technology. $TSLA
Solar seems to be not as common in Europe. Europeans tend to use MUCH MUCH less electricity than Americans. Air conditioning is almost unheard of. Electric rates are quite high so EV's tend to not offer much cost savings despite high gas prices. There aren't really any 15 mpg clown SUV/Pickups over there though..small, fuel efficient sedans and hatchbacks are the norm.
It's not only about energy consumption, or electric rates. The amount of solar energy in a given location is critical for potential output of a system, and has significant impacts on the size and price of a system required. Most of Europe gets way less solar energy than most of North America. so the math is harder.
(https://solargis.com/file?url=download/World/World_PVOUT_mid-size-map_160x95mm-300dpi_v20191015.preview.jpg&bucket=globalsolaratlas.info)
Now - this seems a little far fetched to me! Off the twitterverse...QuoteWhen all of a sudden a car is able to make $ for you by picking & dropping off passengers via a software update, all Teslas in the world will appreciate in value to a magnitude the world has never seen in the world of technology. $TSLA
Yes, and only cars made by one specific company will ever be capable of working as robo-taxis and only a few people will buy these robo-taxis and enjoy the huge payoff of their biggest expense becoming a cash flowing asset. There's no chance that the market will become saturated by robo-taxis, that larger corporations with economies of scale and scope will dominate the market, or that most people will prefer to drive themselves rather than waiting on a ratty taxi that picks up and drops off 3 sketchy strangers on the way to work because the algo said that's the optimal way to make money.
Even wilder, the author expects the old hardware (today's Teslas) to receive a "software update" that enables it to become an autonomous, AI-driven taxi business instead of just something which requires a $2,000 set of tires every 30k miles and has an overall cost of ownership similar to a BMW. It could happen, but why would it happen?
Does tesla have an advantage over other autonomous potentials? I think they have a huge lead! All the cars are hardware equipped for this, so it really is just a download when it is "ready". What are other EVs doing in this? I have no clue.
I keep saying "global" and you keep saying "EU". Why do you exclude the rest of the world?I think we're talking about two different things here. I'm not disagreeing with the conclusion that EV market share will hit double digits. I'm questioning the assertion that EVs meaningfully currently solve any of the current problems from the oil price spike in the EU.That would not have impacted most of the top 10 car buying countries, only 2 of which are in the EU.Russia's invasion of Ukraine sent an oil shock around the world in 2022. Gasoline prices skyrocketed without warning, which meant EVs solved an important problem. I would guess EV market share hit double digits, and will show up in news headlines when 2022 data is available.Didn't natural gas prices skyrocket as much if not more, which the EU uses to generate electricity? In fact, the EU passed measures to reduce electricity usage last fall because of the crisis.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2500/crude-oil-vs-natural-gas-chart
https://www.factorywarrantylist.com/car-sales-by-country.html
Germany relied on Nord Stream 1 and 2 for Russian LNG, and I imagine some neighbors (Denmark, The Netherlands) did as well. Poland didn't trust Russia, and had an LNG terminal to receive shipments, which could explain why their natural gas prices were half of Germany's in mid 2022. Even in the EU, the impact varied.
https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/Poland/natural_gas_prices/
Does tesla have an advantage over other autonomous potentials? I think they have a huge lead! All the cars are hardware equipped for this, so it really is just a download when it is "ready". What are other EVs doing in this? I have no clue.
The leaders, like Mercedes and their Level 3 SAE car, are using radar, which Tesla removed in 2021. Tesla is now adding radar back.
This is why a software update won't work for their older hardware; Tesla would need to release an after-market front-facing radar for their 21-22 cars. Not gonna happen.
We’ve had robust debate on this thread about the level and timing of competition coming for Tesla. Well, Ford just now has done what no other US legacy auto manufacturer has done before. Ford has broken out their EV business financials from the rest of their business operations. In Ford’s case, three buckets (ICE, EV, and Commercial) or divisions. To those of us who have been preaching Tesla’s advantages as a pure EV play with vertical integration and revolutionary manufacturing processes, the numbers coming out from Ford do not come as a surprise, but are still staggering
I’d summarize, but Rob Mauer of Tesla Daily does an admirable job of putting Ford’s EV financials into context relative to what Tesla has accomplished. One nugget though, Ford grew wholesale EV sales 58% in 2022 over 2021, but increased EBIT losses from 900 million in 2021 to 1.9 billion in 2022. That 1.9 billion is more than Tesla lost in any year of it’s existence even during it’s most difficult years of ramping the Model 3. Imagine the difficulties for Ford over the next few years as their ICE sales and profits start eroding at the same time Ford is hemorrhaging cash to ramp up EVs. It’s going to get worse for Ford before it gets better.
The competition is going to have to simply survive in order to compete years from now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey_HqCIqj0c
For those who see BYD as Tesla’s greatest competition, I agree that BYD has great potential. However, BYD sales in China (in markets segments where Tesla plays) plummeted so far this quarter, while Tesla sales rebounded sharply. Tesla has pricing control in the EV market, and their price drops at the end of last year appear to have shifted demand sharply and started a price war that competitors are unable to match.
Does tesla have an advantage over other autonomous potentials? I think they have a huge lead! All the cars are hardware equipped for this, so it really is just a download when it is "ready". What are other EVs doing in this? I have no clue.
The leaders, like Mercedes and their Level 3 SAE car, are using radar, which Tesla removed in 2021. Tesla is now adding radar back.
This is why a software update won't work for their older hardware; Tesla would need to release an after-market front-facing radar for their 21-22 cars. Not gonna happen.
If you read up on Mercedes "Level 3" capability, namely its limitations and where it can be used(i.e. ONLY on the highway at speeds below 40 mph), I think it should not even be mentioned in the same sentence with Tesla. Leader is not the term I would apply to such a severely limited use case scenario.
Here is what Tesla's FSD is currently capable of:
https://t.co/N3Hb2GdidO
I don't study/follow their progress closely, but I think Tesla is *worlds* ahead of others, including Mercedes.
I don't know that much about Mercedes capability i.e. I know the level 3 approval is supremely limited i.e. only in a specific geo-fenced area in Nevada, only on limited access highway in traffic jam situations i.e. below 40 mph. That is a ridiculously limited use case scenario to claim level 3 driving. It's technically true, but does not equate to being able to drive anywhere 95% of the time with limited human intervention.
Tesla's current FSD, as I understand it, can drive anywhere most of the time, with no or little human intervention. As in, give directions from your driveway, and the car fully drives itself, making stops, starts, turns, lane changes, red lights, etc etc, with the caveat that the driver is required to pay attention and intervene any time necessary. But from the little bit that I've checked into it, the car sort of literally 95% completely drives itself.
Tesla's current FSD, as I understand it, can drive anywhere most of the time, with no or little human intervention. As in, give directions from your driveway, and the car fully drives itself, making stops, starts, turns, lane changes, red lights, etc etc, with the caveat that the driver is required to pay attention and intervene any time necessary. But from the little bit that I've checked into it, the car sort of literally 95% completely drives itself.
I don't think Mercedes is remotely close to this level of full self driving. Key word, think. I haven't researched it but also not finding easy info on what Mercedes can do other than their super limited, certain section of geo-fenced Nevada only highway low speed traffic jam usage.
I don't know that much about Mercedes capability i.e. I know the level 3 approval is supremely limited i.e. only in a specific geo-fenced area in Nevada, only on limited access highway in traffic jam situations i.e. below 40 mph. That is a ridiculously limited use case scenario to claim level 3 driving. It's technically true, but does not equate to being able to drive anywhere 95% of the time with limited human intervention.
The Level 3 use case is definitely limited but it's also what literally millions (100k+? in Nevada) of people do every weekday morning and afternoon on the way to and from work. I mostly block out the commutes I used to do but it'd be hella useful if I was still cursing at traffic every afternoon.
Maybe it should be viewed as Level 3 Lite because it's not legally allowed in an urban area (I don't know if it's technically incapable or MB doesn't want the liability).QuoteTesla's current FSD, as I understand it, can drive anywhere most of the time, with no or little human intervention. As in, give directions from your driveway, and the car fully drives itself, making stops, starts, turns, lane changes, red lights, etc etc, with the caveat that the driver is required to pay attention and intervene any time necessary. But from the little bit that I've checked into it, the car sort of literally 95% completely drives itself.
The question is, then, why doesn't Tesla become Level 3 certified?
Tesla's current FSD, as I understand it, can drive anywhere most of the time, with no or little human intervention. As in, give directions from your driveway, and the car fully drives itself, making stops, starts, turns, lane changes, red lights, etc etc, with the caveat that the driver is required to pay attention and intervene any time necessary. But from the little bit that I've checked into it, the car sort of literally 95% completely drives itself.
The question is, then, why doesn't Tesla become Level 3 certified?
Its literally like 1 in trillions use case when it only works in a tiny geographic area under limited \ ideal conditions, relative to normal driving across the entire world.
I have a Tesla and do not even have FSD just the free auto pilot and it works well on the highway anywhere, although i have to monitor. That seems much more useful to me than a fully autonomous car that drives up to 40 mph on a straight highway in perfect conditions on a tiny geographic area in part of one state, which is what some companies brag about.
Premature liability cost, regulatory cost, specific software engineering and staff to manage Level 3 only areas...Tesla's goal is a generalized autonomy solution.
L3 cert would just burn cash like Waymo and Cruise services. IMO, they'll skip and just go L4 state by state when it's ready.
Premature liability cost, regulatory cost, specific software engineering and staff to manage Level 3 only areas...Tesla's goal is a generalized autonomy solution. Level 3 now in really limited areas and conditions would be a waste of resources. Not sure why Tesla would want to get a limited Level 3 cert. As a "Level 2" solution, they can update it when they want, test and collect data everywhere in the US, and not assume liability. L3 cert would just burn cash like Waymo and Cruise services. IMO, they'll skip and just go L4 state by state when it's ready.
I use FSD beta. It can drive me everywhere in my town. In the next town. Bordering states...TBF, what Mercedes has done with Drive Pilot is cool, but I'm skeptical it's scalable.
Premature liability cost, regulatory cost, specific software engineering and staff to manage Level 3 only areas...Tesla's goal is a generalized autonomy solution.
I suspect that's every company's goal, right? Everyone knows what the goal is; it's the same goal as what GM touted was the future of the car at the 1939 World's Fair.
L3 cert would just burn cash like Waymo and Cruise services. IMO, they'll skip and just go L4 state by state when it's ready.
It seems to me that proper engineering is done in steps. Evel Knievel didn't start by jumping the Grand Canyon. You might be right that it's a cash burning waste, but I wouldn't put it past a tech company to have the hubris to think that they can jump in first and fix the holes later. And they might be right to do so, but as we can see with the state of AI and social media, generally these things aren't thought through by the leaders of these companies and are causing a whole host of negative externalities. I don't see Tesla putting in resources to prevent that, just trying to race to be the first.
Premature liability cost, regulatory cost, specific software engineering and staff to manage Level 3 only areas...Tesla's goal is a generalized autonomy solution. Level 3 now in really limited areas and conditions would be a waste of resources. Not sure why Tesla would want to get a limited Level 3 cert. As a "Level 2" solution, they can update it when they want, test and collect data everywhere in the US, and not assume liability. L3 cert would just burn cash like Waymo and Cruise services. IMO, they'll skip and just go L4 state by state when it's ready.
I use FSD beta. It can drive me everywhere in my town. In the next town. Bordering states...TBF, what Mercedes has done with Drive Pilot is cool, but I'm skeptical it's scalable.
At the very least, Mercedes L2 Distronic Plus is $2k and, AFAIK, does everything EAP can do, at least on the highway. I'm not sure if it can do any city driving. But Mercedes seems to offer the same capability on highways as Tesla does, for 1/3 the cost(compared to EAP).
I think this is a weakness Tesla should address. No way I'd pay $6k for EAP, but basic AP functionality is too low. I should be able to at least manually change lanes without losing CC while AP stays engaged and resumes control after the lane change. As it stands now, I have to really tug the wheel, the car jerks all over the place, lose CC, manually change lanes, manually control speed, pass, lane change, re-engage AP. This brokenly non-user friendly IMO, especially when competitors are offering the same thing or better for far less money.
Heck, even our Kia allows a lane change without disengaging cruise control. That's just a broken level of functionality and convenience for a company that is attempting to lead the way in autonomy.
Premature liability cost, regulatory cost, specific software engineering and staff to manage Level 3 only areas...Tesla's goal is a generalized autonomy solution. Level 3 now in really limited areas and conditions would be a waste of resources. Not sure why Tesla would want to get a limited Level 3 cert. As a "Level 2" solution, they can update it when they want, test and collect data everywhere in the US, and not assume liability. L3 cert would just burn cash like Waymo and Cruise services. IMO, they'll skip and just go L4 state by state when it's ready.
I use FSD beta. It can drive me everywhere in my town. In the next town. Bordering states...TBF, what Mercedes has done with Drive Pilot is cool, but I'm skeptical it's scalable.
At the very least, Mercedes L2 Distronic Plus is $2k and, AFAIK, does everything EAP can do, at least on the highway. I'm not sure if it can do any city driving. But Mercedes seems to offer the same capability on highways as Tesla does, for 1/3 the cost(compared to EAP).
I think this is a weakness Tesla should address. No way I'd pay $6k for EAP, but basic AP functionality is too low. I should be able to at least manually change lanes without losing CC while AP stays engaged and resumes control after the lane change. As it stands now, I have to really tug the wheel, the car jerks all over the place, lose CC, manually change lanes, manually control speed, pass, lane change, re-engage AP. This brokenly non-user friendly IMO, especially when competitors are offering the same thing or better for far less money.
Heck, even our Kia allows a lane change without disengaging cruise control. That's just a broken level of functionality and convenience for a company that is attempting to lead the way in autonomy.
That's a product pricing strategy. Obviously the car can do those things. Not sure how your willingness to pay for more ADAS functionality or not is relevant to leading autonomy. You could buy OpenPilot for your Kia to get most FSD Beta-like functionality on highway and city for a fifth of the cost of FSD Beta too. Would doing what you say materially lead to selling more cars, faster? If it did, I'd be for it. This is an investor thread afterall.
That's a product pricing strategy. Obviously the car can do those things Not sure how your willingness to pay for more ADAS functionality or not is relevant to leading autonomy. You could buy OpenPilot for your Kia to get most FSD Beta-like functionality on highway and city for a fifth of the cost of FSD Beta too. Would doing what you say materially lead to selling more cars, faster? If it did, I'd be for it. This is an investor thread afterall.
If more dollars invested meant a faster result, I think we would have had autonomy done years ago. I appreciate Tesla's approach to keeping their head down and following their own path, not any perceived competitors' path and not wall streets path but their own path. They are the kings of being late but also are pretty good at making the impossible possible...eventually...Premature liability cost, regulatory cost, specific software engineering and staff to manage Level 3 only areas...Tesla's goal is a generalized autonomy solution. Level 3 now in really limited areas and conditions would be a waste of resources. Not sure why Tesla would want to get a limited Level 3 cert. As a "Level 2" solution, they can update it when they want, test and collect data everywhere in the US, and not assume liability. L3 cert would just burn cash like Waymo and Cruise services. IMO, they'll skip and just go L4 state by state when it's ready.
I use FSD beta. It can drive me everywhere in my town. In the next town. Bordering states...TBF, what Mercedes has done with Drive Pilot is cool, but I'm skeptical it's scalable.
At the very least, Mercedes L2 Distronic Plus is $2k and, AFAIK, does everything EAP can do, at least on the highway. I'm not sure if it can do any city driving. But Mercedes seems to offer the same capability on highways as Tesla does, for 1/3 the cost(compared to EAP).
I think this is a weakness Tesla should address. No way I'd pay $6k for EAP, but basic AP functionality is too low. I should be able to at least manually change lanes without losing CC while AP stays engaged and resumes control after the lane change. As it stands now, I have to really tug the wheel, the car jerks all over the place, lose CC, manually change lanes, manually control speed, pass, lane change, re-engage AP. This brokenly non-user friendly IMO, especially when competitors are offering the same thing or better for far less money.
Heck, even our Kia allows a lane change without disengaging cruise control. That's just a broken level of functionality and convenience for a company that is attempting to lead the way in autonomy.
That's a product pricing strategy. Obviously the car can do those things. Not sure how your willingness to pay for more ADAS functionality or not is relevant to leading autonomy. You could buy OpenPilot for your Kia to get most FSD Beta-like functionality on highway and city for a fifth of the cost of FSD Beta too. Would doing what you say materially lead to selling more cars, faster? If it did, I'd be for it. This is an investor thread afterall.
In terms of being applicable to the investor side of things, if Tesla were to charge a small fee to enhance basic auto pilot just a little bit, i.e. $300 or $500 that would drastically improve the user friendliness of AP, I would think that this revenue could be used to increase R&D budget for FSD. I have to guess that a large % of Tesla owners are not willing to pay $6k-$15k to upgrade basic AP, but maybe many or most would pay a small fee for the ability to manually change lanes without turning AP on and off. More revenue to invest in autonomy would contribute to.....leading in autonomy.
If more dollars invested meant a faster result, I think we would have had autonomy done years ago. I appreciate Tesla's approach to keeping their head down and following their own path, not any perceived competitors' path and not wall streets path but their own path. They are the kings of being late but also are pretty good at making the impossible possible...eventually...Premature liability cost, regulatory cost, specific software engineering and staff to manage Level 3 only areas...Tesla's goal is a generalized autonomy solution. Level 3 now in really limited areas and conditions would be a waste of resources. Not sure why Tesla would want to get a limited Level 3 cert. As a "Level 2" solution, they can update it when they want, test and collect data everywhere in the US, and not assume liability. L3 cert would just burn cash like Waymo and Cruise services. IMO, they'll skip and just go L4 state by state when it's ready.
I use FSD beta. It can drive me everywhere in my town. In the next town. Bordering states...TBF, what Mercedes has done with Drive Pilot is cool, but I'm skeptical it's scalable.
At the very least, Mercedes L2 Distronic Plus is $2k and, AFAIK, does everything EAP can do, at least on the highway. I'm not sure if it can do any city driving. But Mercedes seems to offer the same capability on highways as Tesla does, for 1/3 the cost(compared to EAP).
I think this is a weakness Tesla should address. No way I'd pay $6k for EAP, but basic AP functionality is too low. I should be able to at least manually change lanes without losing CC while AP stays engaged and resumes control after the lane change. As it stands now, I have to really tug the wheel, the car jerks all over the place, lose CC, manually change lanes, manually control speed, pass, lane change, re-engage AP. This brokenly non-user friendly IMO, especially when competitors are offering the same thing or better for far less money.
Heck, even our Kia allows a lane change without disengaging cruise control. That's just a broken level of functionality and convenience for a company that is attempting to lead the way in autonomy.
That's a product pricing strategy. Obviously the car can do those things. Not sure how your willingness to pay for more ADAS functionality or not is relevant to leading autonomy. You could buy OpenPilot for your Kia to get most FSD Beta-like functionality on highway and city for a fifth of the cost of FSD Beta too. Would doing what you say materially lead to selling more cars, faster? If it did, I'd be for it. This is an investor thread afterall.
In terms of being applicable to the investor side of things, if Tesla were to charge a small fee to enhance basic auto pilot just a little bit, i.e. $300 or $500 that would drastically improve the user friendliness of AP, I would think that this revenue could be used to increase R&D budget for FSD. I have to guess that a large % of Tesla owners are not willing to pay $6k-$15k to upgrade basic AP, but maybe many or most would pay a small fee for the ability to manually change lanes without turning AP on and off. More revenue to invest in autonomy would contribute to.....leading in autonomy.
If they are not leading in autonomy already, who is? Look up and watch FSD beta videos in any city in America on youtube from 24 months ago, 18 months ago, 12 months ago, 6 months ago, and most recent. What have Waymo and Cruise done in the past 24 months other than having a handful of cars running in one or 2 urban areas? How does that scale, every major city in 40 or 50 years? It still can't drive to the suburbs or even the edge of downtown.
What does leading in autonomy look like? Isn't rate of improvement the primary metric? If the MB level 3 improves at a rate anywhere close to Tesla over the next 24 months I will eat my words.
What have Waymo and Cruise done in the past 24 months other than having a handful of cars running in one or 2 urban areas? How does that scale, every major city in 40 or 50 years? It still can't drive to the suburbs or even the edge of downtown.
Have you ever asked yourself why cruise would go to the same three metro areas that waymo started first? Its because they are using the same data and their solution is not scalable. Neither have changed the scope of use case in 24 months and the average person still can't just hail one on the side of the street(wait list). 1 new city in beta every two years will get you driverless cabs in every metro(not suburbs) in 50 years+. Tesla can drive on every road today with human visual monitoring only with no input in a large percentage of use cases(waaaay larger use case than waymo or cruise) and it grows with every new release. Just because you have to visually monitor it doesn't mean it isn't solving more autonomy use cases than driverless. Once the risk of an accident reaches the right threshold, it automatically becomes level 4 for the entire USA with no driver required on any street. How is a proven(over 2 years) unscalable solution(Waymo/Cruise) to driverless cars equal leading in autonomy? Driverless in a small geo-fenced area is as impressive as an automated subway system...not very.What have Waymo and Cruise done in the past 24 months other than having a handful of cars running in one or 2 urban areas? How does that scale, every major city in 40 or 50 years? It still can't drive to the suburbs or even the edge of downtown.
Cruise has Level 4 driverless cabs running in San Francisco, Phoenix, and Austin. There is no human in the driver's seat.
That certainly seems like it bests Tesla's robotaxi mode, which...doesn't exist at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLSOf2uVmY4
Once the risk of an accident reaches the right threshold, it automatically becomes level 4 for the entire USA with no driver required on any street.
What have Waymo and Cruise done in the past 24 months other than having a handful of cars running in one or 2 urban areas? How does that scale, every major city in 40 or 50 years? It still can't drive to the suburbs or even the edge of downtown.
Cruise has Level 4 driverless cabs running in San Francisco, Phoenix, and Austin. There is no human in the driver's seat.
That certainly seems like it bests Tesla's robotaxi mode, which...doesn't exist at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLSOf2uVmY4
What have Waymo and Cruise done in the past 24 months other than having a handful of cars running in one or 2 urban areas? How does that scale, every major city in 40 or 50 years? It still can't drive to the suburbs or even the edge of downtown.
Cruise has Level 4 driverless cabs running in San Francisco, Phoenix, and Austin. There is no human in the driver's seat.
That certainly seems like it bests Tesla's robotaxi mode, which...doesn't exist at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLSOf2uVmY4
Cruise operates under extremely limited conditions. For example only within a subset of San Francisco (not even the whole city), from 10pm to 5am. More broadly for Cruise employees.
They have cherry picked the easiest roads in the city and just drive on those and spent years mapping and honing the driving to a small area, which the taxi can’t leave. And even then the usage is limited to a time when pedestrians and other traffic are less numerous.
Every other so called autonomous leader has a similar model where they pick a really narrow/ easy use case and hone the car’s abilities to do that.
Tesla lets you drive anywhere under any conditions, which is infinitely harder than narrow use cases. And the system is being trained and optimized with data from millions of Teslas on the road.
Not sure how soon a robotaxi for broadly available general use across the US is coming, but I would bet Tesla would be the first to do it.
Tesla has millions of cars everywhere feeding data to improve their performance compared to a tiny scale (hundreds of cars under limited conditions/area) for Waymo/cruise.
Also Tesla is already a viable use case more so than Cruise and Waymo in that they sell FSD at scale as a successful commercial product and contribute to profits versus money losing small scale pilots.
Tesla has millions of cars everywhere feeding data to improve their performance compared to a tiny scale (hundreds of cars under limited conditions/area) for Waymo/cruise.
This is magical thinking. Cracking the self-driving nut isn't simply a brute force problem... 10x more data won't move things along 10x faster. Even industry insiders have admitted that Level 5 is a lot more difficult than anticipated. Everyone got excited about the initial progress, but it turns out the early phase stuff was the easy part, and even then some of what we saw was fake (https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-video-promoting-self-driving-was-staged-engineer-testifies-2023-01-17/).Also Tesla is already a viable use case more so than Cruise and Waymo in that they sell FSD at scale as a successful commercial product and contribute to profits versus money losing small scale pilots.
Just because Telsa calls/called it Full Self Driving doesn't mean it's actually self driving or anywhere near Level 5. Tesla FSD Beta is Level 2 (https://electrek.co/2023/03/07/elon-musk-tesla-next-vehicle-operate-almost-entirely-autonomous-mode/) (note the quote: "Tesla has so far only delivered FSD Beta, which is still a level 2 driver assist system as per the automaker’s own admission.") and always requires a human behind the wheel. In other words, Tesla has commercialized Level 2 at scale, which is on par with other advanced driver assistance systems from other companies. Whereas Waymo and Cruise have actual Level 4 vehicles on the road... like cars without human operators. There's no way around it, Tesla is behind the leaders at this point.
From what I’ve heard from people in San Francisco it’s basically a few main streets that Waymo and Cruise use primarily. Maybe if they did this over 6 months that would be impressive but we are talking many years and still at tiny scale.
Have you ever asked yourself why cruise would go to the same three metro areas that waymo started first? Its because they are using the same data and their solution is not scalable. Neither have changed the scope of use case in 24 months and the average person still can't just hail one on the side of the street(wait list). 1 new city in beta every two years will get you driverless cabs in every metro(not suburbs) in 50 years+. Tesla can drive on every road today with human visual monitoring only with no input in a large percentage of use cases(waaaay larger use case than waymo or cruise) and it grows with every new release. Just because you have to visually monitor it doesn't mean it isn't solving more autonomy use cases than driverless. Once the risk of an accident reaches the right threshold, it automatically becomes level 4 for the entire USA with no driver required on any street. How is a proven(over 2 years) unscalable solution(Waymo/Cruise) to driverless cars equal leading in autonomy? Driverless in a small geo-fenced area is as impressive as an automated subway system...not very.
Locally geo-fenced driverless cars are akin to a physical keyboard on the smartphone...eventually people will understand they are not very useful and not necessary.
Tesla has millions of cars everywhere feeding data to improve their performance compared to a tiny scale (hundreds of cars under limited conditions/area) for Waymo/cruise.
This is magical thinking. Cracking the self-driving nut isn't simply a brute force problem... 10x more data won't move things along 10x faster. Even industry insiders have admitted that Level 5 is a lot more difficult than anticipated. Everyone got excited about the initial progress, but it turns out the early phase stuff was the easy part, and even then some of what we saw was fake (https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-video-promoting-self-driving-was-staged-engineer-testifies-2023-01-17/).Also Tesla is already a viable use case more so than Cruise and Waymo in that they sell FSD at scale as a successful commercial product and contribute to profits versus money losing small scale pilots.
Just because Telsa calls/called it Full Self Driving doesn't mean it's actually self driving or anywhere near Level 5. Tesla FSD Beta is Level 2 (https://electrek.co/2023/03/07/elon-musk-tesla-next-vehicle-operate-almost-entirely-autonomous-mode/) (note the quote: "Tesla has so far only delivered FSD Beta, which is still a level 2 driver assist system as per the automaker’s own admission.") and always requires a human behind the wheel. In other words, Tesla has commercialized Level 2 at scale, which is on par with other advanced driver assistance systems from other companies. Whereas Waymo and Cruise have actual Level 4 vehicles on the road... like cars without human operators. There's no way around it, Tesla is behind the leaders at this point.
Tesla has millions of cars everywhere feeding data to improve their performance compared to a tiny scale (hundreds of cars under limited conditions/area) for Waymo/cruise.
This is magical thinking. Cracking the self-driving nut isn't simply a brute force problem... 10x more data won't move things along 10x faster. Even industry insiders have admitted that Level 5 is a lot more difficult than anticipated. Everyone got excited about the initial progress, but it turns out the early phase stuff was the easy part, and even then some of what we saw was fake (https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-video-promoting-self-driving-was-staged-engineer-testifies-2023-01-17/).Also Tesla is already a viable use case more so than Cruise and Waymo in that they sell FSD at scale as a successful commercial product and contribute to profits versus money losing small scale pilots.
Just because Telsa calls/called it Full Self Driving doesn't mean it's actually self driving or anywhere near Level 5. Tesla FSD Beta is Level 2 (https://electrek.co/2023/03/07/elon-musk-tesla-next-vehicle-operate-almost-entirely-autonomous-mode/) (note the quote: "Tesla has so far only delivered FSD Beta, which is still a level 2 driver assist system as per the automaker’s own admission.") and always requires a human behind the wheel. In other words, Tesla has commercialized Level 2 at scale, which is on par with other advanced driver assistance systems from other companies. Whereas Waymo and Cruise have actual Level 4 vehicles on the road... like cars without human operators. There's no way around it, Tesla is behind the leaders at this point.
Completely disagree; in my view Tesla is way ahead.
They have many millions of miles self driven with no intervention, and the level of intervention declining consistently. This being done under all types of conditions anywhere in the world, and can be done for entire end to end trips.
This includes highly complex maneuvers like difficult left hand turns through busy traffic.
They are teaching the car to do anything/ anywhere globally that an human could drive and using AI to continuously improve it, with use case from millions of cars identifying any optimization needed.
No other company in the world has a self driving sw that works anywhere remotely as broadly. The other car companies (GM, Ford, etc) have sw that works in very limited situations, like certain mapped highways only and even then limited (eg not on sharp curves).
Cruise/waymo are driving easy trips under limited conditions in small mapped areas autonomously. In areas cherry picked for being easy to drive and then carefully mapped and honed according to the local geography. It’s like a step up from a self driven train/streetcar.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this as your logic is not compelling to me and it appears mine is not compelling to you.
As the saying goes, the proof is in the eating of the pudding. Tesla FSD is Level 2, Cruise and Waymo are Level 4 with regulatory oversight that includes providing data for public scrutiny.The (rather enormous) problem with your position is that the "level 4" for Cruise and Waymo has insanely tight geographic controls and they don't seem to be on a trajectory for generalizing from those extremely limited areas.
Tesla has millions of cars everywhere feeding data to improve their performance compared to a tiny scale (hundreds of cars under limited conditions/area) for Waymo/cruise.
This is magical thinking. Cracking the self-driving nut isn't simply a brute force problem... 10x more data won't move things along 10x faster. Even industry insiders have admitted that Level 5 is a lot more difficult than anticipated. Everyone got excited about the initial progress, but it turns out the early phase stuff was the easy part, and even then some of what we saw was fake (https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-video-promoting-self-driving-was-staged-engineer-testifies-2023-01-17/).Also Tesla is already a viable use case more so than Cruise and Waymo in that they sell FSD at scale as a successful commercial product and contribute to profits versus money losing small scale pilots.
Just because Telsa calls/called it Full Self Driving doesn't mean it's actually self driving or anywhere near Level 5. Tesla FSD Beta is Level 2 (https://electrek.co/2023/03/07/elon-musk-tesla-next-vehicle-operate-almost-entirely-autonomous-mode/) (note the quote: "Tesla has so far only delivered FSD Beta, which is still a level 2 driver assist system as per the automaker’s own admission.") and always requires a human behind the wheel. In other words, Tesla has commercialized Level 2 at scale, which is on par with other advanced driver assistance systems from other companies. Whereas Waymo and Cruise have actual Level 4 vehicles on the road... like cars without human operators. There's no way around it, Tesla is behind the leaders at this point.
Completely disagree; in my view Tesla is way ahead.
They have many millions of miles self driven with no intervention, and the level of intervention declining consistently. This being done under all types of conditions anywhere in the world, and can be done for entire end to end trips.
This includes highly complex maneuvers like difficult left hand turns through busy traffic.
They are teaching the car to do anything/ anywhere globally that an human could drive and using AI to continuously improve it, with use case from millions of cars identifying any optimization needed.
No other company in the world has a self driving sw that works anywhere remotely as broadly. The other car companies (GM, Ford, etc) have sw that works in very limited situations, like certain mapped highways only and even then limited (eg not on sharp curves).
Cruise/waymo are driving easy trips under limited conditions in small mapped areas autonomously. In areas cherry picked for being easy to drive and then carefully mapped and honed according to the local geography. It’s like a step up from a self driven train/streetcar.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this as your logic is not compelling to me and it appears mine is not compelling to you.
Yes, we're in disagreement. It's your money, do as you please. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, just pointing out a different perspective for others that may be reading this thread.
As the saying goes, the proof is in the eating of the pudding. Tesla FSD is Level 2, Cruise and Waymo are Level 4 with regulatory oversight that includes providing data for public scrutiny. Are investors really to believe that Tesla is secretly far ahead in this race yet is keeping it quiet while they release modest incremental updates? This is inconsistent with what we've seen from Musk and his well established pattern of over-promising and under-delivering.
One has to wonder how many true believers forked over a lump sum of $15k for FSD on the expectation that their cars would soon pay for themselves as robotaxies. I feel for them since they're unlikely to see Level 5 autonomy within the lifespan of the vehicle. https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/12/business/tesla-fsd-autopilot-lawsuit/index.html
If I'm one of the 95%+(99%?) who don't live in the tiny little zone Waymo operates in and I want a car that will *mostly* drive itself to anywhere I want to go, should I give Tesla a try, or Waymo? For most people in most situations, Tesla is almost full FSD capable. For almost all people in almost all situations, Waymo provides nothing at all.
You say Waymo is level 4 and therefore ahead of Tesla. Here is what you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge.
Waymo's operating area:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ovcmX3vyUpWGlqym945vUFsUPFTH7O5FGyYs38yWGCW57Aoi-Cu2TZfOuv4bLYZLCyVHLR_5fNZ6qkdHNXNSYk8P2NQFgtDby2wze_M=rw-w2880-e365
Tesla operating area:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationsonline.org%2Foneworld%2Fmap%2Fusa_map.htm&psig=AOvVaw2iIRkWkE1nC_fpSPtoMV6q&ust=1680908404438000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CBAQjRxqFwoTCNDx3_Stlv4CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE
Your position seems to be that level 4 capability but only in .0001% of circumstances is better than being somewhat close to level 4 anywhere under any conditions. Maybe you are correct, but some people seem to disagree with you. At least acknowledge that those are two completely different things. It would be similar to saying cell phone company A has the absolute best coverage in the world and is the leader in that industry, but they only cover ten blocks in the entire USA. Company B provides 95% coverage in the entire country. Which company is truly ahead?
It seems you are either being disingenuous or aren't well educated on the difference between Tesla's FSD capability compared to Waymo.
If I'm one of the 95%+(99%?) who don't live in the tiny little zone Waymo operates in and I want a car that will *mostly* drive itself to anywhere I want to go, should I give Tesla a try, or Waymo? For most people in most situations, Tesla is almost full FSD capable. For almost all people in almost all situations, Waymo provides nothing at all.
Which approach is right? I personally don't know, but I also would never make a ridiculous claim that the above scenario shows Waymo as ahead.
To me, it seems like neither company is anywhere close i.e. years or a decade away from offering L4 everywhere.
Naming it Full Self Driving (when it clearly was nowhere near this), along with Musk promising Level 5 with software updates, was a stroke of marketing genius. Showmanship at it's best, which is where Musk really shines.
I fully acknowledge that Waymo and Cruise have a *very* limited operating area, never said otherwise. IMO this is a Good Thing. It's not as if the streets of San Francisco are easy or otherwise unrealistic. Solve driving in SF and then extend to Oakland, San Jose, pretty much any US city. Build trust with regulators along the way. Highway driving is the easy part.
But if you want to talk quantity, then let's make an apples-to-apples comparison of Level 2 systems. Even here, Tesla has fallen behind the pack:
https://electrek.co/2023/01/25/ford-gm-consumer-reports-driver-assistance-rankings-tesla/
https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-safety/active-driving-assistance-systems-review-a2103632203/
Que the Tesla fanbois who will now tell us Consumer Reports is biased, bwahahaha! Now from what I can tell this is Autopilot (not FSD), but again, if quantity of data were the key factor in producing quality then improvements should be making it into both FSD and Autopilot. Instead, competitors are besting Tesla.
Naming it Full Self Driving (when it clearly was nowhere near this), along with Musk promising Level 5 with software updates, was a stroke of marketing genius. Showmanship at it's best, which is where Musk really shines. It's fascinating that some people have bought this hook, line and sinker when it's clearly not true. At this point Tesla isn't in the game until they put Level 4 or Level 5 vehicles on public roads.
FSD Beta gets updates regularly (because data) including a unified road stack for city and highway just in the past few weeks.
FSD Beta gets updates regularly (because data) including a unified road stack for city and highway just in the past few weeks.
I still don't think that 99% of the marketing on AI are addressing the potential problems with deep learning based systems or communicating those hurdles to the public. It's becoming like nanotechnology or the cloud where companies are relying on the misunderstanding of it to oversell their products. And it works. Just need more data (magic) and problems are solved!
Issues with AI learing https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=googlescholar&id=GALE|A637731669&v=2.1&it=r&asid=9366b827 (https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=googlescholar&id=GALE|A637731669&v=2.1&it=r&asid=9366b827)
As was mentioned before, it wouldn't be out of the norm for Elon to oversell the capabilities or timeframe of his tech. I do recognized that he has fundamentally changed the trajectory of vehicles for the world- an amazing feat! And even more impressive was to capitalize on the need for space travel development when NASA had been chained by politics. It's all amazing stuff.
But I still want to point out: this still doesn't solve the problem that cars are at their base level an inefficient and expensive system to build our civilization around. For someone (Elon) who proports to be about First Principles thinking, he hit a road block on cars and didn't take any further steps back in the simplification process to analyze human movement, efficient cities and the like. He's just someone who loves cars and wanted to make better ones (he was ecstatic to buy an McClaren F1 after selling PayPal, a true enthusiasts supercar). And he did make better ones. But that's like making a better gun... to what end are we trying to reach?
Medium and heavy trucks are the second- largest polluters, accounting for 22 percent of transportation emissions. Although this was half the emissions of passenger cars, there are considerably fewer trucks on the road, showing just how polluting global road freight is.
That aside, comparing EVs to a "better gun" is ridiculous. EVs are a huge positive step for the environment over ICE. Unless your "better gun" can be set to stun instead of kill, then maybe.
Tesla is on the tip of the iceburg for transforming transportation.
That aside, comparing EVs to a "better gun" is ridiculous. EVs are a huge positive step for the environment over ICE. Unless your "better gun" can be set to stun instead of kill, then maybe.
Tesla is on the tip of the iceburg for transforming transportation.
I respectfully but vehemently disagree with the bolded statement, and it's what I've been saying this whole time. They're just making cars. Electric cars- sure. Maybe even self driving ones some day. Cars are poor daily transportation. Cars have ruined our cities. Cars are bad for your health, even if they have no emissions. Car tires are ruining our groundwater. Cars are un-mustachian (I'm throwing that in there as to why I feel compelled to defend this line of view on this forum)
Your stun analogy is a perfect continuation of mine. Yes, a stun gun (Taser) is "better" than a gun- aka less lethal. But what would be even better is for our police force to actively de-escalate situations in a way that needs neither as frequently. It would be better for us to design society with institutions for mental health that remove the danger of individuals from the public, rather than making them live on the streets. Much harder and less romantic and easy to measure, but better in the long run. In the narrow view of "gun vs Taser", I would prefer to be shot with a Taser. Just like I would prefer to drive an EV over an ICE. But if one uses First Principles thinking (like Elon promotes), then I'm going to say, why do we need the Gun/Car in the first place? How about we just design our cities so I can do most things on foot? Why presume that a car is needed for normal American life?
Because then I don't need cheap Tesla insurance. I don't need a two car garage or an EV charger or to replace my tires that hold 2 tons of sheet metal. I don't need to exercise after sitting in a passenger seat for hours every week because I can walk or bike. I could do those things if I want to, but I can be a super environmentally conscious citizen without even thinking about it because it's just the standard procedure. That's why I think Tesla is a distraction. In the 90's, plastic bags were touted to be the solution to avoiding killing all of the trees needed to make paper bags. The environmentalists were happy, paving the way with good intentions. I see Tesla in a similar way. Great intentions by the investors and owners. But possibly misguided, sold on the marketing hype. And why wouldn't they be? The hype is incredibly strong, with an incredible story. Lone American manufacturer saves the world and atones for the sins of the Big Three that got us here in the first place. Ridding us of dealers and, also, they are linked with sending us into space and putting solar power in the hands of the people. Beating China at their own game. I get it. I'm just not sold on it, and the longer I go, the more it smells of bs to me.
Edit: I don't want to make your personal decision to own a Tesla or Tesla Stock the point of the conversation here. We are all subject to outside forces and tendencies. I am frustrated with how public conversation goes, and am sure that I don't know everything.
I saw this and felt like it is a great video for those wondering/debating about the capabilities/strategies of Waymo vs FSD.
This video is a ~15 minute drive in Waymo's geofenced area comparing the capability on the exact same route at the exact same time. Heavy advantage for Waymo here as it is within their small geofenced area. What Tesla does in this video, it can do anywhere in the USA.
For anyone open minded who wants to honestly compare and contrast the two, I thought this was very informative!
https://youtu.be/2Pj92FZePpg
If you are frustrated with public conversation, being a fan of a particular company and products seems the least concerning thing about public converstion! Women's bodily autonomy, civil right, school shootings......these are all much more pressing than if tesla is living up to its hype.
If you are frustrated with public conversation, being a fan of a particular company and products seems the least concerning thing about public converstion! Women's bodily autonomy, civil right, school shootings......these are all much more pressing than if tesla is living up to its hype.
Misty... we've knocked heads a few times on this forum... and you've been quite positive and respectful in all instances. And I really appreciate that... but, it doesn't appear that we get across any points to each other. Well, I feel that I am not given the benefit of good faith conversation... What am I missing in convincing you that I've spent a lot of time thinking about this subject and have some quite interesting things to discuss? It seems that there should be somewhere that we can agree on but I'm not sure where it is? I'm genuinely concerned for the human event and our environment and think that there are some powerful tools that are missing from the conversation.
I saw this and felt like it is a great video for those wondering/debating about the capabilities/strategies of Waymo vs FSD.
This video is a ~15 minute drive in Waymo's geofenced area comparing the capability on the exact same route at the exact same time. Heavy advantage for Waymo here as it is within their small geofenced area. What Tesla does in this video, it can do anywhere in the USA.
For anyone open minded who wants to honestly compare and contrast the two, I thought this was very informative!
https://youtu.be/2Pj92FZePpg
Pretty interesting!
One thing that hasn't been addressed here is the equipement on top of the waymo and cruise cars vs totally builtin with tesla. Not sure what future plans are for that - is cruise part of/partnered with an auto manufacturer?
Is waymo/cruise only going for the taxi piece? not for car owners?
I saw this and felt like it is a great video for those wondering/debating about the capabilities/strategies of Waymo vs FSD.
This video is a ~15 minute drive in Waymo's geofenced area comparing the capability on the exact same route at the exact same time. Heavy advantage for Waymo here as it is within their small geofenced area. What Tesla does in this video, it can do anywhere in the USA.
For anyone open minded who wants to honestly compare and contrast the two, I thought this was very informative!
https://youtu.be/2Pj92FZePpg
Pretty interesting!
One thing that hasn't been addressed here is the equipement on top of the waymo and cruise cars vs totally builtin with tesla. Not sure what future plans are for that - is cruise part of/partnered with an auto manufacturer?
Is waymo/cruise only going for the taxi piece? not for car owners?
Since 2016 Cruise has been a subsidiary of GM:
https://news.gm.com/newsroom.detail.html/Pages/news/us/en/2022/mar/0318-cruise.html
A lot of the tech from Cruise goes into GM's Super Cruise suite of driving aids for their consumer vehicles (which by most accounts is a very capable competitor to Tesla's Auto Pilot but is limited to being used only in mapped areas). Or perhaps that's a two way street, with SuperCruise enabled vehicles providing data to help Cruise and vice versa?
Anyway, the stuff that they add on top of the vehicle is lidar, etc which should increase the ability for the vehicle to "see" it's surroundings without visual input (foggy, snowy weather, etc). I believe Tesla has elected to avoid using lidar, relying on cameras completely which has raised concerns from many industry people. The tech can be incorporated more smoothly when it's included in the vehicle's design from the beginning such as the Cruise Origin driverless taxi:
https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/21/21075977/cruise-driverless-car-gm-no-steering-wheel-pedals-ev-exclusive-first-look
(https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/gm-cruise-800x399.jpg)
Right now, people still need and want cars for a lot of different reasons. Tesla is offering a better alternative to ICE. I don't know where tesla and public transit may be in 10 years. But I don't see holding tesla accountable for this. And then Ford And GM given a total pass!
Right now, people still need and want cars for a lot of different reasons. Tesla is offering a better alternative to ICE. I don't know where tesla and public transit may be in 10 years. But I don't see holding tesla accountable for this. And then Ford And GM given a total pass!
And... well, to your point about old, sick, elderly, disabled, etc... how do you think they handle that in areas that are pedestrian friendly? The elderly can sit on their patio and watch people and interact with neighbors, rather than be stuck in a ranch house in the suburbs with no visitors or social life without driving somewhere. Not to mention, if you walk around on foot all your life rather than sit in a car, you will be much more mobile well into your later decades than someone who sits all the time. Overall, the quality of life is just better.
you haven't had this experience in your life but even super active, healthy 80 year olds are still aging - and they don't just fall over dead at 89 before things take a turn. They get to 90, then 95, maybe even older, and it keeps getting harder and harder for them while they need more doctor appts and testing visits than before.
And I don't find al this pie in the sky urban planning to be at all pertinent to a discussion about tesla.
If we've learned anything, it's that the US is filled to the brim with selfish assholes who aren't going to inconvience themselves one iota.
Making an EV that was attractive, fun, with great performance that people would buy on it's own merits regardless of if they were thinking EV over ICE was a genious move.
you haven't had this experience in your life but even super active, healthy 80 year olds are still aging - and they don't just fall over dead at 89 before things take a turn. They get to 90, then 95, maybe even older, and it keeps getting harder and harder for them while they need more doctor appts and testing visits than before.
Ok, so we can carve out that cars are needed for some instances such as semi-mobile elderly in their last decade, disabled, moving things like mattresses. But 99% of car trips are done by healthy people that can walk.And I don't find al this pie in the sky urban planning to be at all pertinent to a discussion about tesla.
It seems relevent to me for the reasons I've stated aboveIf we've learned anything, it's that the US is filled to the brim with selfish assholes who aren't going to inconvience themselves one iota.
Making an EV that was attractive, fun, with great performance that people would buy on it's own merits regardless of if they were thinking EV over ICE was a genious move.
Those same arguments were used by people 20 years ago about why EVs would not ever work in the US... but here we are! The were too slow, didn't have any range, weren't "tough" enough for Americans, what about charging on long trips, etc." and slowly but surely those concerns are being put to rest for the majority of the population.
Let me propose that right now you've got the same tone about walkable cities as the dissenters had about EVs. "It can't work, it's a pipe dream, Americans resist change, what about this specific scenario, etc." What I am saying is that there is the same potential for our culture to embrace more pedestrian mobility in the same way we've begun to embrace EVs. Just because we don't see the path there (like we didn't see the path 20 years ago until the cards fell in the right place and Tesla led the charge), doesn't mean that path isn't there. We need an Elon for walkable cities- some genius to market them as fun and profitable so that people would live there on their own merit. With potentially much bigger payback than EVs could ever give us.
Someone with a lot of money to spend has taken a bullish stance on Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA).
And retail traders should know.
We noticed this today when the big position showed up on publicly available options history that we track here at Benzinga.
Whether this is an institution or just a wealthy individual, we don't know. But when something this big happens with TSLA, it often means somebody knows something is about to happen.
Meanwhile!QuoteSomeone with a lot of money to spend has taken a bullish stance on Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA).
And retail traders should know.
We noticed this today when the big position showed up on publicly available options history that we track here at Benzinga.
Whether this is an institution or just a wealthy individual, we don't know. But when something this big happens with TSLA, it often means somebody knows something is about to happen.
was waiting for some funds to settle yesterday to pick up 2 more shares....but then tsla shot up like 6%....up more today, maybe due to this? Now I don't have enough to buy two shares! Wondering if I should just get one, or wait a few days see if this shakes out? In my super junior "timing the market" with my $350 odd ><D
Meanwhile!QuoteSomeone with a lot of money to spend has taken a bullish stance on Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA).
And retail traders should know.
We noticed this today when the big position showed up on publicly available options history that we track here at Benzinga.
Whether this is an institution or just a wealthy individual, we don't know. But when something this big happens with TSLA, it often means somebody knows something is about to happen.
was waiting for some funds to settle yesterday to pick up 2 more shares....but then tsla shot up like 6%....up more today, maybe due to this? Now I don't have enough to buy two shares! Wondering if I should just get one, or wait a few days see if this shakes out? In my super junior "timing the market" with my $350 odd ><D
I think Tesla has tremendous long term potential as a company/stock. At some point in the somewhat near future as their sales continue to explode and revenue continues to explode with solar, batteries, FSD, etc etc, their stock is likely to climb. In the meantime, the stock seems to be heavily manipulated and volatile on a day to day basis.
My point is that, since buying a single stock like Tesla is just kind of having fun with a small % of our/your money, then I don't see the harm in having fun with "timing" things and trying to buy on a little dip here and there. IF its something you enjoy doing and don't see it as a headache. You could always put in a limit order to buy at XYZ price which matches your available funds.
I really think you should start your own thread about walkable cities. This thread is about tesla as an investment, and repeatedly veering into this line of discourse is just kind of odd.
What attractive investment opportunities exist for walkable cities? Or could potentially exist? If nothing, then could be a general discussion if it is just about urban planning aspect?
And IMO investing in telsa is better than investing in mcdonald's, walmart, philipp morris, exxon, boeing, conoco phillips, et al. You know, the sp500? So unless you have echewed investing in all these kinds of companies, I'm not sure what you are trying to preach here.
I really think you should start your own thread about walkable cities. This thread is about tesla as an investment, and repeatedly veering into this line of discourse is just kind of odd.
What attractive investment opportunities exist for walkable cities? Or could potentially exist? If nothing, then could be a general discussion if it is just about urban planning aspect?
And IMO investing in telsa is better than investing in mcdonald's, walmart, philipp morris, exxon, boeing, conoco phillips, et al. You know, the sp500? So unless you have echewed investing in all these kinds of companies, I'm not sure what you are trying to preach here.
Fair enough. My one (very minor) reply is that I am interested in communicating with people involved in EVs, not with those already interested in walkable cities. But I understand how this is bothersome in here to many. If I started such a thread, what are the chances that most people in this thread would participate in it?
..I need some way to block this thread so it doesn't keep popping up in my feed, lol. I will stop hounding for now. Tesla is in my VTSAX so I'll just ride with that.
I saw this and felt like it is a great video for those wondering/debating about the capabilities/strategies of Waymo vs FSD.
This video is a ~15 minute drive in Waymo's geofenced area comparing the capability on the exact same route at the exact same time. Heavy advantage for Waymo here as it is within their small geofenced area. What Tesla does in this video, it can do anywhere in the USA.
For anyone open minded who wants to honestly compare and contrast the two, I thought this was very informative!
https://youtu.be/2Pj92FZePpg
Anyway, the stuff that they add on top of the vehicle is lidar, etc which should increase the ability for the vehicle to "see" it's surroundings without visual input (foggy, snowy weather, etc).LIDAR is actually pretty crappy at dealing with fog/snow/rain. It's good for getting really precise distances/scans in clear weather.
Anyway, the stuff that they add on top of the vehicle is lidar, etc which should increase the ability for the vehicle to "see" it's surroundings without visual input (foggy, snowy weather, etc).LIDAR is actually pretty crappy at dealing with fog/snow/rain. It's good for getting really precise distances/scans in clear weather.
There’s a new Model Y offering on Teslas website, reportedly using the new 4680 cells, and it seems a bit underwhelming, 279 mile range, only $3k cheaper than the 330 mile long range.
What’s the take on this from the Tesla bulls?
There’s a new Model Y offering on Teslas website, reportedly using the new 4680 cells, and it seems a bit underwhelming, 279 mile range, only $3k cheaper than the 330 mile long range.
What’s the take on this from the Tesla bulls?
Depends. If maximum range without charging for frequent long highway trips in very cold weather is important, it wouldn't be the best choice as range could drop to 150 miles or less. With Tesla's charging network, you could probably still make it work.
A reason to consider this model might depend on state tax credits. For example, in PA, you get a $2,000 EV rebate if under $50k. So net cost could be $40,500 for a brand new "SUV" EV. So now it is $5k cheaper than the 330 mile range version.
We have a 239 mile range EV that we will probably keep for many years.....and it won't road trip anywhere remotely as well as a 279 mile range Tesla due to the charging network.
There’s a new Model Y offering on Teslas website, reportedly using the new 4680 cells, and it seems a bit underwhelming, 279 mile range, only $3k cheaper than the 330 mile long range.
What’s the take on this from the Tesla bulls?
Depends. If maximum range without charging for frequent long highway trips in very cold weather is important, it wouldn't be the best choice as range could drop to 150 miles or less. With Tesla's charging network, you could probably still make it work.
A reason to consider this model might depend on state tax credits. For example, in PA, you get a $2,000 EV rebate if under $50k. So net cost could be $40,500 for a brand new "SUV" EV. So now it is $5k cheaper than the 330 mile range version.
We have a 239 mile range EV that we will probably keep for many years.....and it won't road trip anywhere remotely as well as a 279 mile range Tesla due to the charging network.
but - will you be able to use the tesla network as the open those up?
Are there any spots where you wouldn't make it from one charging station to the next on tesla's system?
There’s a new Model Y offering on Teslas website, reportedly using the new 4680 cells, and it seems a bit underwhelming, 279 mile range, only $3k cheaper than the 330 mile long range.
What’s the take on this from the Tesla bulls?
Depends. If maximum range without charging for frequent long highway trips in very cold weather is important, it wouldn't be the best choice as range could drop to 150 miles or less. With Tesla's charging network, you could probably still make it work.
A reason to consider this model might depend on state tax credits. For example, in PA, you get a $2,000 EV rebate if under $50k. So net cost could be $40,500 for a brand new "SUV" EV. So now it is $5k cheaper than the 330 mile range version.
We have a 239 mile range EV that we will probably keep for many years.....and it won't road trip anywhere remotely as well as a 279 mile range Tesla due to the charging network.
but - will you be able to use the tesla network as the open those up?
Are there any spots where you wouldn't make it from one charging station to the next on tesla's system?
Are both questions in regards to our Kia? Yes, we will be able to use any of the Tesla stations that open for other cars, but I don't think the options are very extensive at this point.
If question two is in regards to the 279 mile range Model Y, I think it would be able to drive almost anywhere even under the worst conditions. Nice thing about Tesla is that it can use ANY charger including Tesla. All one needs is to keep a CCS adapter in the car.
There’s a new Model Y offering on Teslas website, reportedly using the new 4680 cells, and it seems a bit underwhelming, 279 mile range, only $3k cheaper than the 330 mile long range.
What’s the take on this from the Tesla bulls?
Depends. If maximum range without charging for frequent long highway trips in very cold weather is important, it wouldn't be the best choice as range could drop to 150 miles or less. With Tesla's charging network, you could probably still make it work.
However, it’s important to note that in this case, this is Tesla’s only model to have seen its federal tax credit being reduced from $7,500 to $3,750 following the battery source requirements.
It appears Tesla is trying to counter the reduced incentive with a direct price cut.
Despite some of the staunchest Tesla fans or investors trying to make us believe that it’s all part of Tesla’s mission to make EVs more affordable, these price cuts are indeed due to demand going down.
Tesla’s goal is to sell all the vehicles it produces. If it could sell them for a higher price, it would and it has in the past. Yes, there might be some cost improvements involved too, but not $16,000 or 24% worth in just a few months.
Recall about a year ago when I was being called a fool for predicting that the competition was coming and Tesla's margins would have to decline to stay competitive? Good times.
TSLA 12 month performance: -45.5%
I'm also looking forward to simpler lower cost EVs coming to market in the next several years: The $25,000 electric vehicle is coming, with big implications for the auto market and car buyers (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/16/the-25000-ev-is-coming-with-big-implications-for-car-buyers.html)Tesla saves money using that large touchscreen for everything. It's the same concept we use in my business - factory control systems and automation. The old way was lots of hard-wired buttons and switches and lights. We haven't done that in factories for decades. We use touchscreens and ipads.
Tech-rich vehicles with big touch screens and tons of features don't really appeal to me. An EV with physical buttons, fewer features, but with good range and battery management is more my speed.
Tesla will continue to reduce production costs and grow homemade 4680 cell production.What is the advantage of the 4680? Is it to reduce costs? In the current offering (model Y AWD) there is no performance improvement.
Tesla bears will never be satisfied. Tesla’s is either screwed because the cars are too expensive and Tesla is going to run out of buyers or Tesla is screwed because Tesla is cutting prices to match willing buyers to the rapidly growing production capacity.
Tesla will continue to gobble up market share.
Tesla will continue to reduce production costs and grow homemade 4680 cell production.What is the advantage of the 4680? Is it to reduce costs? In the current offering (model Y AWD) there is no performance improvement.
The vehicle is the cheapest Model Y, but it's also the least range, slowest charging.
Tesla will continue to reduce production costs and grow homemade 4680 cell production.What is the advantage of the 4680? Is it to reduce costs? In the current offering (model Y AWD) there is no performance improvement.
The vehicle is the cheapest Model Y, but it's also the least range, slowest charging.
Tesla bears will never be satisfied. Tesla’s is either screwed because the cars are too expensive and Tesla is going to run out of buyers or Tesla is screwed because Tesla is cutting prices to match willing buyers to the rapidly growing production capacity.
Tesla could have either dropped prices or slowed down growth because, bottom line, the premium market isn't unlimited. It's why Audi and BMW aren't selling 10M cars/year and Toyota is -- not everyone can afford a $50k+ car. Tesla chose to drop prices and, to no one's surprise, profit margins dropped.
Thinking this is a "bear" position says more about that person than it does about the person making the observation.QuoteTesla will continue to gobble up market share.
Tesla US market share has declined 14% from 2020-22. There are only vague rumors about a <$30k model and there are dozens of other EVs showing up this year and next. Tesla is going to lose market share this year, and see decreased profit margins, as it tries to make room for its production capacity. If the CT takes off, as predicted by its order list, it may well gain some market share in 2024.
Tesla is not a luxury car producer.
So, Tesla’s share of the EV market share has decreased when compared to a time period when competitors were basically producing zero EVs.
I’ve said it numerous times, as has Elon, Tesla is not competing with the OEMs for some share of a fixed EV market pie. Nearly all ICE is going to transition to EV, so everyone is competing for the total passenger vehicle market with their EVs.
What other luxury car manufacture is making 2 million vehicles this year. Not BMW, Cadillac, Lexus, Audi, Porche, Jaguar or Mercedes Benz.
Tesla’s ASP, including model X and S stands at $46,000. The average price of a new car in the US right now is $48,000.
Tesla bears will never be satisfied. Tesla’s is either screwed because the cars are too expensive and Tesla is going to run out of buyers or Tesla is screwed because Tesla is cutting prices to match willing buyers to the rapidly growing production capacity.
Tesla could have either dropped prices or slowed down growth because, bottom line, the premium market isn't unlimited. It's why Audi and BMW aren't selling 10M cars/year and Toyota is -- not everyone can afford a $50k+ car. Tesla chose to drop prices and, to no one's surprise, profit margins dropped.
Thinking this is a "bear" position says more about that person than it does about the person making the observation.QuoteTesla will continue to gobble up market share.
Tesla US market share has declined 14% from 2020-22. There are only vague rumors about a <$30k model and there are dozens of other EVs showing up this year and next. Tesla is going to lose market share this year, and see decreased profit margins, as it tries to make room for its production capacity. If the CT takes off, as predicted by its order list, it may well gain some market share in 2024.
So, Tesla’s share of the EV market share has decreased when compared to a time period when competitors were basically producing zero EVs.
Correct, Tesla's EV market share in the US has declined. It now has competitors.QuoteI’ve said it numerous times, as has Elon, Tesla is not competing with the OEMs for some share of a fixed EV market pie. Nearly all ICE is going to transition to EV, so everyone is competing for the total passenger vehicle market with their EVs.
No one has denied that EVs will take market share from ICEs.QuoteWhat other luxury car manufacture is making 2 million vehicles this year. Not BMW, Cadillac, Lexus, Audi, Porche, Jaguar or Mercedes Benz.
Eh? BMW sold 2.4M cars last year. Mercedes sold 2.0M cars last year.QuoteTesla’s ASP, including model X and S stands at $46,000. The average price of a new car in the US right now is $48,000.
This has been stated before but average is not median. The median household income in America is $70k. The average is $102k.
You seem really concerned about Tesla's share of the EV market. Is this what you think matters in some way?
Edit: To clarify what I'm getting at, what do you think matters more, that Tesla has increased their share of the total US light vehicle market by 50% in a year(from ~1.7% to ~2.5%), or that their share of EV only is decreasing as legacy ICE transitions?
For example, if Tesla's EV only market share drops to only 25%, but that turns out to be 25% of ALL light duty vehicles in the US, is that a bad thing in your eyes that signifies the company is doing poorly somehow? If so, I'm not sure math agrees with you.
So does Tesla’s share of the EV market matter relative to their growing share of the automotive market? You clearly thought Tesla's declining share of the EV market was important enough to point out.
Is Tesla really a luxury car maker if their ASP is less than the average cost of a new car in the US (before the federal credits puts the price well below the average)? I didn’t catch your response. Regardless, Tesla has and will continue to work down market with their vehicle offerings and expand market share by entering new vehicle segments.
These articles always get the Tesla haters riled up and trying to claim that Tesla is not a luxury brand. A quick check reveals that Motortrend, Motor1 and JD Power also include Tesla in their luxury category and rank them at or close to the top and I am sure there are others.
Zuckerberg runs down Elon as Meta's market cap tops Tesla for first time in 16 months
7:32 pm ET April 20, 2023 (MarketWatch)
By Emily Bary
I know the difference between median and average, but average is what we have to work with unless you actually know the median price of new cars right now?
Channeling your inner Musk?Tesla will continue to reduce production costs and grow homemade 4680 cell production.What is the advantage of the 4680? Is it to reduce costs? In the current offering (model Y AWD) there is no performance improvement.
The vehicle is the cheapest Model Y, but it's also the least range, slowest charging.
seems like you should google that up?
Thanks, and that aligns with reading I've done about the 4680.Tesla will continue to reduce production costs and grow homemade 4680 cell production.What is the advantage of the 4680? Is it to reduce costs? In the current offering (model Y AWD) there is no performance improvement.
The vehicle is the cheapest Model Y, but it's also the least range, slowest charging.
My understanding, going off Battery Day recollections, is the sum of the new technologies (dry anode/cathode, tabless, less graphite, etc.), the manufacturing process, and scaled production of 4680 batteries were going to bring down battery cell costs by 50%. I don’t know what amount of that has been realized to date, but it’s great than 0 and less than 50%.
The other advantage of 4680 was improved energy density in the pack. Greater energy density means more power for less weight, which means more range from reduced vehicle weight for the same size pack.
Lastly, I believe the 4680s are supposed to last longer (less degradation, more cycles) over time, which is why they were slated for the semi and CT in particular.
This is not a comprehensive response, but what I recall. Perhaps most importantly now, but unknown when the 4680 was announced, is the importance of domestic battery cell production to capture the credits contained in the IRA. Every cell produced in the US (or with raw materials sourced from the US and close trade partners) will fetch a sizable credit and essentially be produced at a discount. Tesla can pocket that money or pass it on to the consumer.
Elon Musk's net worth dropped an estimated $11.4B yesterday. Mark Zuckerberg's estimated net worth today is still only ~40% that of Elon Musk's. To the extent this stuff matters to either of their ego's (and I could imagine answers all the way from "not at all" to "a lot") I don't think the situation today is any different that it was last week.
Elon Musk's net worth dropped an estimated $11.4B yesterday. Mark Zuckerberg's estimated net worth today is still only ~40% that of Elon Musk's. To the extent this stuff matters to either of their ego's (and I could imagine answers all the way from "not at all" to "a lot") I don't think the situation today is any different that it was last week.
way to stomp on my jocosity.....this thread seriously needs some lightening up!
In my expert opinoin!
Elon Musk's net worth dropped an estimated $11.4B yesterday. Mark Zuckerberg's estimated net worth today is still only ~40% that of Elon Musk's. To the extent this stuff matters to either of their ego's (and I could imagine answers all the way from "not at all" to "a lot") I don't think the situation today is any different that it was last week.
way to stomp on my jocosity.....this thread seriously needs some lightening up!
In my expert opinoin!
Musk seems to have carried over his Twitter strategy to the latest spaceX launch . . .
You seem really concerned about Tesla's share of the EV market. Is this what you think matters in some way?
Well, yeah, if we're talking profit margins and growth targets. Competition does that. However, if you have other ideas as to why Tesla has dropped car prices 6 times this year in the US, I'm willing to listen.
Maybe I'm way off here, but here's some quick napkin math:
Average sales price $46,000
1,800,000 units for 2023.
18% profit margin.
15 billion profit 2023. Bad result?
Every vehicle we sell, battery we install & solar panel we add moves the needle in the direction of a sustainable future.
Thank you to the Tesla team, customers & supporters for bringing us closer to our goal!
Happy Earth Day 🌎💙
I've been noticing stinky cars a lot when I am out and about.
in urban areas, the switch to EV is going to be great for health - particular to those with asthma, COPD, etc.
Super glad to be part of that :)
from tesla on twitter:QuoteEvery vehicle we sell, battery we install & solar panel we add moves the needle in the direction of a sustainable future.
Thank you to the Tesla team, customers & supporters for bringing us closer to our goal!
Happy Earth Day 🌎💙
Money isn't everything. And money is nothing without our health and the health of the planet.
Recall about a year ago when I was being called a fool for predicting that the competition was coming and Tesla's margins would have to decline to stay competitive? Good times.Cherry picking. You know better than that.
TSLA 12 month performance: -45.5%
So, technically a 4680 is just the form factor. It's a cylinder 46mm wide and 80mm tall. The 2170s are a cylinder 21mm wide and 70mm tall.Tesla will continue to reduce production costs and grow homemade 4680 cell production.What is the advantage of the 4680? Is it to reduce costs? In the current offering (model Y AWD) there is no performance improvement.
The vehicle is the cheapest Model Y, but it's also the least range, slowest charging.
A group of Tesla Inc. shareholders have come out against the nomination of a former executive to the car maker's board over concerns he is an insider coming in to replace an independent director.
Labor pension fund advisory firm SOC Investment Group and other investors urged Tesla shareholders on Monday to vote against the nomination of former Chief Technology Officer J. B. Straubel to a seat that will be vacated by independent director Hiro Mizuno.
The group has already engaged the board's chair, Robyn Denholm, about a potential overhaul of the board that would have "truly independent directors" swapped in for board members that have strong ties to Chief Executive Elon Musk, including his brother Kimbal Musk and other personal friends, according to the letter.
Installing Mr. Straubel to the board would mean that at least five of the board's eight members lack independence, the shareholder said.
"Replacing an independent director with another insider risks exacerbating existing problems that seem to arise from such a clubby board," the investors said.
A representative for Tesla didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
The investor group argues that Tesla needs a more independent board to rein in Elon Musk and protect the company from its chief's recent actions, which they fear have tarnished the car maker's reputation
As for Tesla, you couldn't pay me enough drive one. Their CEO is a piece of grade A magat trash, and I'm not interested in giving him a dime. Fuck him, you know? There's a ton of other EVs and competitively priced hybrids out there, and most of them are nicer. So I'll be putting my money there on my next car a few years from now.
As for Tesla, you couldn't pay me enough drive one. Their CEO is a piece of grade A magat trash, and I'm not interested in giving him a dime. Fuck him, you know? There's a ton of other EVs and competitively priced hybrids out there, and most of them are nicer. So I'll be putting my money there on my next car a few years from now.
Will you vet the character of CEOs of other car brands before you buy?
Elon gets a lot of media attention, more than he should, and it seems to influence people more than it should. From looking at his antics, he seems like he's immature. But is he any worse than the CEO of Ford or Hyundai? Or Proctor & Gamble, Unilever, Tyson Foods, and countless other companies you give your dollars to every day?
As for Tesla, you couldn't pay me enough drive one. Their CEO is a piece of grade A magat trash, and I'm not interested in giving him a dime. Fuck him, you know? There's a ton of other EVs and competitively priced hybrids out there, and most of them are nicer. So I'll be putting my money there on my next car a few years from now.
Will you vet the character of CEOs of other car brands before you buy?
Elon gets a lot of media attention, more than he should, and it seems to influence people more than it should. From looking at his antics, he seems like he's immature. But is he any worse than the CEO of Ford or Hyundai? Or Proctor & Gamble, Unilever, Tyson Foods, and countless other companies you give your dollars to every day?
Pretty sure he is worse, because if other CEOs were acting the same way, we'd hear about it. Most other corporations have a better governance structure than Tesla, and he would've been out long ago. So, no, I'm not giving a dime to him, either through purchasing one of his products, or through adding to the value of his company via investing in it. Tesla is never going to see $400 again. And they are never selling 20M cars a year. Like I said, my next vehicle will likely be electric, but it will *not* be a Tesla.
None of that matters.Nah, I think it's your ranting that doesn't matter.
Gosh, if only we looked back at the return since the start of this thread. Let's add the 5 year:
TSLA 6-mo return: -7%
TSLA 12-mo return: -28%
TSLA 24-mo return: -12%
TSLA 5-yr return: +814%
HMC 6-mo return: +19%
HMC 12-mo return: +13%
HMC 24-mo return: -7%
HMC 5-yr return: -14%
TM 6-mo return: -0%
TM 12-mo return: -11%
TM 24-mo return: -9%
TM 5-yr return: +4%
Paints a pretty different picture.
FWIW, we can currently buy out options on TSLA expiring in January 2021 at the $50 strike price for about $6.88. In layman's terms, this is a wager that would yield a 627% return if TSLA goes bankrupt and shares go to zero and a 100% loss if that fails to happen.
Those are not bad odds considering that Elon's Twitter addiction might have just blocked the company's last remaining route to raise the $2B it needs to operate a little longer.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4207331-tesla-may-now-locked-capital-markets (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4207331-tesla-may-now-locked-capital-markets)
I'm way too risk averse to throw $100k at the idea, but damn it sure is a tempting fantasy play to retire in 6-12 months.
FWIW, we can currently buy out options on TSLA expiring in January 2021 at the $50 strike price for about $6.88. In layman's terms, this is a wager that would yield a 627% return if TSLA goes bankrupt and shares go to zero and a 100% loss if that fails to happen.
Those are not bad odds considering that Elon's Twitter addiction might have just blocked the company's last remaining route to raise the $2B it needs to operate a little longer.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4207331-tesla-may-now-locked-capital-markets (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4207331-tesla-may-now-locked-capital-markets)
I'm way too risk averse to throw $100k at the idea, but damn it sure is a tempting fantasy play to retire in 6-12 months.
ChpBastrd has been very consistent. He/she has consistently, since the inception of this thread, expressed deep concerns for nearly all things Tesla/Elon and predicted Tesla was on the verge of collapse. Like in Sept 2018, when he/she speculated Tesla would not be able to raise additional capital to “operate a little longer”.
He/she suggested/considered placing a bet on Tesla's imminent demise that would return 627% when Tesla went belly-up. Unfortunately, Tesla’a demise didn’t materialize that time or any other time ChpBastrd predicted. However, anyone simply buying and holding TSLA stock from the date of that post would have returned 870% based on today’s closing price.
To somehow suggest you’ve been right about Tesla all along (or at any point for that matter) based on some cherry-picked short-term time intervals and a mud slinging approach to identifying concerns with the company shows a desperation to be proven right over something you’ve clearly been wrong about for years. I’ve been wrong about investments I’ve made (or didn’t make) in the past. Its oaky, there’s no shame in it.
Stocks are decisions where incomplete information, chaotic processes, and random chance are all factors in the results. These factors cannot be incorporated into our decisions, and yet the outcomes of our decisions are largely based on these factors.FWIW, we can currently buy out options on TSLA expiring in January 2021 at the $50 strike price for about $6.88. In layman's terms, this is a wager that would yield a 627% return if TSLA goes bankrupt and shares go to zero and a 100% loss if that fails to happen.
Those are not bad odds considering that Elon's Twitter addiction might have just blocked the company's last remaining route to raise the $2B it needs to operate a little longer.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4207331-tesla-may-now-locked-capital-markets (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4207331-tesla-may-now-locked-capital-markets)
I'm way too risk averse to throw $100k at the idea, but damn it sure is a tempting fantasy play to retire in 6-12 months.
ChpBastrd has been very consistent. He/she has consistently, since the inception of this thread, expressed deep concerns for nearly all things Tesla/Elon and predicted Tesla was on the verge of collapse. Like in Sept 2018, when he/she speculated Tesla would not be able to raise additional capital to “operate a little longer”.
He/she suggested/considered placing a bet on Tesla's imminent demise that would return 627% when Tesla went belly-up. Unfortunately, Tesla’a demise didn’t materialize that time or any other time ChpBastrd predicted. However, anyone simply buying and holding TSLA stock from the date of that post would have returned 870% based on today’s closing price.
To somehow suggest you’ve been right about Tesla all along (or at any point for that matter) based on some cherry-picked short-term time intervals and a mud slinging approach to identifying concerns with the company shows a desperation to be proven right over something you’ve clearly been wrong about for years. I’ve been wrong about investments I’ve made (or didn’t make) in the past. Its oaky, there’s no shame in it.
Elon just very recently said he will say whatever he wants and if loses money (i.e. stock suffers) so be it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sUwRiIncKU
My friend just bought a Chevy Bolt recently. He had wanted a Tesla, but after Elon starting spewing out what he thought was very divisive and hateful, he decided not to get one.
In the past I told myself I wanted a Tesla if I was going to buy an electric vehicle in the future. But now, like my friend, I have changed my mind. I feel the same way as him about Elon. (I really used to like the guy.)
So I dunno. Doesn't seem like good business practice to be divisive and exclude millions of customers. And from the small sample I've seen, it will affect future sales.
I found this result surprising...namely in terms of how poorly every car shown performed......except Tesla.
https://twitter.com/elektrotimmy/status/1652319408201539586?s=20
If I was so strongly morally opposed to Elon Musk, I suppose I'd have to consider why I'm buying broad market index funds.......I bought one of his cars even though he makes some dumb tweets or comments, and I suppose I continue to support his company every time I purchase FXAIX.
I found this result surprising...namely in terms of how poorly every car shown performed......except Tesla.
https://twitter.com/elektrotimmy/status/1652319408201539586?s=20
If I was so strongly morally opposed to Elon Musk, I suppose I'd have to consider why I'm buying broad market index funds.......I bought one of his cars even though he makes some dumb tweets or comments, and I suppose I continue to support his company every time I purchase FXAIX.
Good points! Likely isn't a person on this board that doesn't have some tesla shares somewhere!
The safety of tesla isn't talked about enough. There was someone jumped on here to post about the tesla driving off a cliff - assuming that the autopilot was a fault. Did not come back when it was revealed it was a deliberate suicide/murder attempt, and everyone survived because of the tesla....
tesla is so much more than musk....even though he doesn't think so!
Well I invest in America, yeah there is a percentage of Tesla in VTI, but there are also a lot of other nasty companies. I try and ignore that and justify it by realizing that overall America is a decent country. But, I will never directly invest in Tesla, or buy one of his cars.
But companies should stay out of extreme politics. I don't see how it can help them. This country is so divided right now, if a company or CEO takes a strong stance in one direction, insulting or alienating HALF of the country, then they could lose half their sales. I'm no business major but it seems like common sense.
Honestly it has gotten to the point that I think Elon is developing some kind of mental illness. How can you look at a guy who is covered in Nazi tattoos and confidently say there’s no proof that he was a white supremacist? Granted, white supremacist was a deliberately loaded choice of words, they should have just called the guy a neo-Nazi (also, he was Hispanic, not White). Regardless, it seems clear to me that Elon is not acting in his own rational self interest when he makes public statements like this. Something just isn’t right with him.
Elon Musk used to be a visionary and inspiring leader who could motivate his companies to make the impossible possible. But something started going wrong with him around the time of the Pedo Guy incident and since then it has only gotten worse. Today, he has gone so far down the right wing conspiracy rabbit hole that it is seriously hampering his ability to inspire his employees and lead his companies. If his mental health continues to deteriorate, I am not sure how much longer he can remain as CEO of Tesla.
Strange as it may sound, this sort of thing isn’t all that unusual for people like Elon. Henry Ford, Nikola Tesla, and Howard Hughes all suffered from severe mental declines that brought about the downfall of their careers. Elon seems to be on the same path.
Honestly it has gotten to the point that I think Elon is developing some kind of mental illness. How can you look at a guy who is covered in Nazi tattoos and confidently say there’s no proof that he was a white supremacist? Granted, white supremacist was a deliberately loaded choice of words, they should have just called the guy a neo-Nazi (also, he was Hispanic, not White). Regardless, it seems clear to me that Elon is not acting in his own rational self interest when he makes public statements like this. Something just isn’t right with him.
Elon Musk used to be a visionary and inspiring leader who could motivate his companies to make the impossible possible. But something started going wrong with him around the time of the Pedo Guy incident and since then it has only gotten worse. Today, he has gone so far down the right wing conspiracy rabbit hole that it is seriously hampering his ability to inspire his employees and lead his companies. If his mental health continues to deteriorate, I am not sure how much longer he can remain as CEO of Tesla.
Strange as it may sound, this sort of thing isn’t all that unusual for people like Elon. Henry Ford, Nikola Tesla, and Howard Hughes all suffered from severe mental declines that brought about the downfall of their careers. Elon seems to be on the same path.
Honestly it has gotten to the point that I think Elon is developing some kind of mental illness. How can you look at a guy who is covered in Nazi tattoos and confidently say there’s no proof that he was a white supremacist? Granted, white supremacist was a deliberately loaded choice of words, they should have just called the guy a neo-Nazi (also, he was Hispanic, not White). Regardless, it seems clear to me that Elon is not acting in his own rational self interest when he makes public statements like this. Something just isn’t right with him.
Elon Musk used to be a visionary and inspiring leader who could motivate his companies to make the impossible possible. But something started going wrong with him around the time of the Pedo Guy incident and since then it has only gotten worse. Today, he has gone so far down the right wing conspiracy rabbit hole that it is seriously hampering his ability to inspire his employees and lead his companies. If his mental health continues to deteriorate, I am not sure how much longer he can remain as CEO of Tesla.
Strange as it may sound, this sort of thing isn’t all that unusual for people like Elon. Henry Ford, Nikola Tesla, and Howard Hughes all suffered from severe mental declines that brought about the downfall of their careers. Elon seems to be on the same path.
Totally agree.....its very concerning. he's become tesla's greatest handicap rather than asset. I remember seeing him on late night TV about 10 years ago - and I was so uplifted to hear that a corporation was looking to make a huge shift in the automotive industry to benefit climate. He did seem such a visionary. And someone who could make it happen. Seeing what he had done since then with all his companies up to about 1.5-2 years ago was inspiring.
Now he seems like a megalomaniac rotting from the inside out only courting attention from every sphere he can get it.
And see all those optimi marching about on the twitter video couple with his state of mind.....not so uplifting!!!
One of his rants was not "just a few words in the end". It is eternally unacceptable unless he apologizes and changes his tune.
Good points! Likely isn't a person on this board that doesn't have some tesla shares somewhere!Consider dividend investors who avoid non-dividend paying stocks. Or investors who panicked from 2022 losses and remain 100% cash now. Finally, neither of these represents my situation, but I have $0 in public equities ($0 public stocks, $0 index funds, $0 equity ETFs).
He doesn’t spend large sums trying to influence elections like the Koch brothers or George Soros.He doesn't? I thought he just paid $44 billion for twitter. Right after he bought it he switched to the far right and started spewing out hateful things and invited Trump back etc. He also unbanned accounts of anti-semites etc.
... I won't repeat what he said, to keep this thread drama free.
One of his rants was not "just a few words in the end". It is eternally unacceptable unless he apologizes and changes his tune.
... spewing out hateful things and invited Trump back etc. He also unbanned accounts of anti-semites etc.
I'll refrain ...
Yeah and I think it isn't a good investment at all, because he's alienated half of the country. I don't think there will be as much demand here in the states as they think. Maybe he'll just have to sell more to China or whoever. He's a very STUPID CEO for being so bright.
Yeah and I think it isn't a good investment at all, because he's alienated half of the country. I don't think there will be as much demand here in the states as they think. Maybe he'll just have to sell more to China or whoever. He's a very STUPID CEO for being so bright.
Half of the country doesn't care about left or the right. Not everyone cares about politics and all that nonsense. I know of two very democrat people that go on LGTBQ marches etc and they both drive Tesla's. Only the extremist will not buy a product because of what he saysI also doubt the efficacy of boycotts. I know lots of people who are adamant about women's rights. They pick up Chick-fil-a on the way to Hobby Lobby.
I found this result surprising...namely in terms of how poorly every car shown performed......except Tesla.
https://twitter.com/elektrotimmy/status/1652319408201539586?s=20
If I was so strongly morally opposed to Elon Musk, I suppose I'd have to consider why I'm buying broad market index funds.......I bought one of his cars even though he makes some dumb tweets or comments, and I suppose I continue to support his company every time I purchase FXAIX.
Good points! Likely isn't a person on this board that doesn't have some tesla shares somewhere!
The safety of tesla isn't talked about enough. There was someone jumped on here to post about the tesla driving off a cliff - assuming that the autopilot was a fault. Did not come back when it was revealed it was a deliberate suicide/murder attempt, and everyone survived because of the tesla....
tesla is so much more than musk....even though he doesn't think so!
I think folks that are swearing off Tesla solely because of Elon are taking a very narrow view. Elon will be rich and annoying wethe ror not you buy a Tesla. By not supporting Tesla we do risk hurting the mission. It's clear to me that the industry will only move to electrify as quickly as they are pushed by Tesla. The folks that will be most effected by any sort of boycott are the employees, who are doing good noble work to make a living and support their families.
We as consumers buy dozens of products daily. Several from companies actively destroying the planet. Half of these products are made by companies, headed by CEOs with whom half the country would strongly disagree with their politics and beliefs if they were widely known. Elon's political beliefs and worldview are not unique, it's only his stupid need to share his stream of consciousness with the public that is unique. So, unless folks looking into the politics of every CEO for every product they buy, its seems odd to single out Tesla.
Elon has made one particular comment that was so bad, that no amount of good that he has done can outweigh it. What he said really drove the nail in the coffin for me to never want to purchase any products he makes. I won't repeat what he said, to keep this thread drama free.
Half of the country doesn't care about left or the right. Not everyone cares about politics and all that nonsense. I know of two very democrat people that go on LGTBQ marches etc and they both drive Tesla's. Only the extremist will not buy a product because of what he saysI also doubt the efficacy of boycotts. I know lots of people who are adamant about women's rights. They pick up Chick-fil-a on the way to Hobby Lobby.
Musk's involvement in Tesla was primarily as a venture capitalist, large shareholder, board member, spokesperson, and as the person who picks the lieutenants who run the company (CEO).
Given his multiple companies to oversee, it seems likely to me that he had minimal influence in many of the ways we describe when we say someone "runs" a company. I.e. how many hours per day can he devote to deep-diving into contracts and regulations, recruiting talent, analyzing the company's financials, aligning company culture, etc?
As I noted before, Musk's "genius" may merely reflect his absence, sort of like how the best performing accounts belong to the dead investors. His lieutenants couldn't infight for the CEO's favor if the CEO wasn't present very often or was too distracted to notice their jabs at each other. Big initiatives could proceed for years without whiplash from a CEO constantly changing the company's direction. Managers didn't have to take time to explain technical details to a top leader who can't possibly understand them. Leaders had autonomy and they were forced to cooperate. The culture became the opposite of micromanagement.*
Now with Twitter we've learned what happens when Musk gets hands-on with an already monopolistic company and fires all its existing lieutenants: downtime, losses of market share, openings for competitors, product initiatives that are here today and gone tomorrow, unpaid suppliers, lawsuits, etc. This would have been the case with Tesla had Musk not been too distracted by his other companies to micromanage Tesla.
Now that Twitter is off his plate, maybe Musk will get into AI like he's talked about. But there's also the risk he jumps back into Tesla to micromanage its transition into a normal automaker.
TL;DR: Don't worry too much about Musk, but watch him as a risk.
*This perspective calls into question our culture of CEO-worship and the high compensation CEOs are provided. Are they really creating that much value? How often do they destroy value? Are people at the VP level really too incompetent to make things happen without a rare-bird chief executive with a one-in-a-million personality?
I don’t get the people who conclude that Elon must be some kind of psychopathic villain just because he said stuff on Twitter that they don’t agree with. Elon is no more evil than your crazy uncle who rants about George Soros and the New World Order at Thanksgiving dinner. Crazy, yes. Evil, no.
That said, I really want to drive the point home that something just isn’t right with Elon. Tesla didn’t need to advertise in the past because Elon was loved by the public and could advertise for free on Twitter. Now, his tweets are hurting the company, not helping it. Elon’s public statements are causing material harm to his companies and hindering him from achieving his stated goals of transitioning the world to sustainable energy, making human civilization multi-planetary, and “extending the light of consciousness”. Because of Elon’s public statements, people are no longer inspired by him, most of the public has come to hate him, corporations and politicians are less willing to work with his companies, and some politicians are even deliberately targeting his companies and trying to harm them. At this point, Elon has almost completely lost his soft power and ability to influence people. And for what?
Just imagine what Elon could have achieved if he had never made any controversial public statements, and remained focused on his stated goals. Tesla wouldn’t need to advertise. Elon would be adored by the public and have soft power greater than most world leaders. Instead, Elon has apparently chosen to act against his rational self interest and ruin his reputation, harm his companies, and hinder his goals. The man is clearly mentally ill.
Musk's involvement in Tesla was primarilyGosh, you seem as misinformed about his involvement as you do about what you most recently posted about automotive stocks. I note that you're trying to change the subject instead of addressing how your apparent position was thoroughly destroyed.
How is that "drama free" claim of yours going? You said "I'll refrain" and now you're posting "He's a very STUPID CEO". You can start a new thread in "off topic" rather than try to repeatedly post here driving this thread off topic.It's going fine thanks. I have been drama free and will remain so. I hope you are doing okay as well.
A smart business owner would want to maximize the profits for himself and the rest of the shareholders. He (or she) would find ways he could appeal to everyone, maximizing sales. Not say things which drive away half of the customer base. It doesn't matter if you are republican, democrat or independent, everyone deserves respect. But a CEO calling half of the people in this country names and suggesting they be imprisoned isn't respectful at all, and frankly stupid.
And I'm saddened that I upset you but: You made a statement that he didn't invest in politics, and I explained that you were overlooking the $44B he spent on twitter.Don't lie about what I said. Quote where I said what you claimed.
I don’t get the people who conclude that Elon must be some kind of psychopathic villain just because he said stuff on Twitter that they don’t agree with. Elon is no more evil than your crazy uncle who rants about George Soros and the New World Order at Thanksgiving dinner. Crazy, yes. Evil, no.
That said, I really want to drive the point home that something just isn’t right with Elon. Tesla didn’t need to advertise in the past because Elon was loved by the public and could advertise for free on Twitter. Now, his tweets are hurting the company, not helping it. Elon’s public statements are causing material harm to his companies and hindering him from achieving his stated goals of transitioning the world to sustainable energy, making human civilization multi-planetary, and “extending the light of consciousness”. Because of Elon’s public statements, people are no longer inspired by him, most of the public has come to hate him, corporations and politicians are less willing to work with his companies, and some politicians are even deliberately targeting his companies and trying to harm them. At this point, Elon has almost completely lost his soft power and ability to influence people. And for what?
Just imagine what Elon could have achieved if he had never made any controversial public statements, and remained focused on his stated goals. Tesla wouldn’t need to advertise. Elon would be adored by the public and have soft power greater than most world leaders. Instead, Elon has apparently chosen to act against his rational self interest and ruin his reputation, harm his companies, and hinder his goals. The man is clearly mentally ill.
Don't lie about what I said. Quote where I said what you claimed.Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Anyways, I've shared what was on my mind whether or not I felt it was a good investment; I won't talk about it anymore. It gives me anxiety to have upset people.I understood your factually incorrect statement just fine - but you were wrong.Don't lie about what I said. Quote where I said what you claimed.Sorry for the misunderstanding.
And I'm saddened that I upset you but: You made a statement that he didn't invest in politics, and I explained that you were overlooking the $44B he spent on twitter.Don't lie about what I said. Quote where I said what you claimed.
Okay well let's just agree to disagree okay? I don't want to continue going on about this. It's giving me anxiety. I've said what I felt I needed to say answering the OPs question.I'm not trying to be antagonistic here but I do want to make an observation
EDIT: You misunderstand what I said when I said "sorry for the misunderstanding". I said that b/c I didn't understand why you blew up on me claiming I was dramatic, so I presumed you were upset about my response of Elon buying twitter.
No, I am not going to ignore Elon, he's the CEO Tesla, the topic of this thread, and has caused a lot of problems for Tesla with his divisiveness, which affect shareholders, which is why I don't think it's a good investment. (I'll NEVER ignore Elon, I have an eye on him always, he's the richest guy on planet and the most divisive CEO I've ever seen in my life.)
I am done with this though. I've always treated everyone with respect here. I'm allowed to converse with people here; it's not my problem if you think I'm too assertive.
In a past thread you mentioned; I did exactly that: STOPPED. I stopped because the guy got all upset at me out of no where --shocked me really-- and said he wanted the last word and I said, "alrighty" and I let him have it. And I was so polite in this thread a couple posts ago, apologizing for upsetting people and said I was done.
So yeah I'll say it again: I respect you all and I'm done here. Peace.
I was just trying to advise you on how you could perhaps reduce your time spent being stressed online.Well I don't need any psychological advice; but if you were being sincere then I respect that you were trying to be kind to me. I come here to chat about financially related things. [Saying, "I'm done here", means I am done here related to the topic of this thread -- which doesn't preclude me from replying to comments or questions about my character or mental state -- although I rather not talk about this since it is off topic.]
If you'd like I can give you a list of every rich and powerful person that I know of with problematic takes, if you really think your time and energy is best served by keeping tabs on rich people with questionable ethics. There's certainly enough of them to keep you busy 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.I respect your last words and viewpoint -- my lips are zipped. 🤐🤗
Okay well let's just agree to disagree okay? I don't want to continue going on about this. It's giving me anxiety. I've said what I felt I needed to say answering the OPs question.You lied about what I said, and when I demanded you quote me, you became evasive. You refused to quote me - because I never said what you claimed. You put words in my mouth, lying about what I said, and you refuse to correct that mistake. If you stand by your original comment, quote where I said this:
For the third time, where did I say this? If you can't produce evidence I said something, that's because you're wrong. It's not agreeing to disagree - you said something false, trying to put words in my mouth. That is wrong, and you are wrong. Now will you admit you're wrong, or will you provide evidence of what I said?And I'm saddened that I upset you but: You made a statement that he didn't invest in politics, and I explained that you were overlooking the $44B he spent on twitter.Don't lie about what I said. Quote where I said what you claimed.
BTW: You misunderstand what I meant when I said "sorry for the misunderstanding". I said that b/c I didn't understand why you blew up on me claiming I was dramatic, so I presumed you were upset about my response of Elon buying twitter. You expressed that you weren't upset by it so I apologized for misunderstanding. (But in reality you do seem upset about from what you wrote about it in your last post.)
You made a statement that he didn't invest in politicsYou really don't understand what this sentence means? You claim I "made a statement", and the lie comes next: "he didn't invest in politics". Those are the words you have ignored over and over, pretending it is something else. Claiming I said "You made a statement that he didn't invest in politics" is a lie, not a misunderstanding or something else.
I've clearly explained everything. I didn't lie about anything, I explained I misunderstood you.I don't need your explanation, because I have your exact words: "he didn't invest in politics", which you cannot explain away. I did not misunderstand "You made a statement that he didn't invest in politics", which is what you claim. You are wrong and unable to admit it.
...In case it escapes you, you said you were done, twice, and then continued. Being wrong about your own behavior while being unable to admit you're wrong is a odd combination.
And I was so polite in this thread a couple posts ago, apologizing for upsetting people and said I was done.
So yeah I'll say it again: I respect you all and I'm done here. Peace.
Elon is not an elected official or policy maker. He doesn’t spend large sums trying to influence elections like the Koch brothers or George Soros.
Tesla has agreed to let owners of Ford Motor electric vehicles use Tesla's extensive network of superchargers in the U.S. beginning in 2024. Investors love the idea. There are good reasons for that.
The charging collaboration was announced by Ford (ticker: F) CEO Jim Farley and Tesla (TSLA) CEO Elon Musk Thursday evening on Twitter Spaces. The pair talked about the deal and EVs for about 30 minutes and took a few questions too.
Ford drivers using Tesla chargers "will not be cost-prohibitive," said Musk at one point, adding that only an adapter is needed for Ford to plug into Tesla charging stalls. Farley said he was open to other areas collaboration between the two firms, including EV-related software.
Tesla Model Y was the number one selling vehicle in the world Q1 2023.
Tesla Model Y was the number one selling vehicle in the world Q1 2023.
wow! did not know that! {eta.....maybe i did know??? seems familar....but could be confused with hearing it was the most sold model for a particular country.....}
Something has really shifted, I see teslas on the road all the time now. I used to count them as a game, but its become too average an occurrence. On the highway a week or two ago, 3 lanes going north it was me and two other teslas abreast, one would have thought we coordinated it!
Every CEO (and person) is entitled to their own opinion, and frankly I don't care what CEO's think of privately. But to make very public deeply polarizing statements, one after another, continually, is beyond stupid. I have never seen a CEO of a large company do this. It will affect the sales so that's why I think TSLA isn't a good investment. Look at what AB did recently, and they flip flopped and now NO ONE wants to buy their beer; recently saw a promo code on Doctor of Credit that AB was offering free Bud Light. Leave politics out of business. It only hurts things. (Warren Buffet said a year or so ago at a meeting, that politics has no place in business; it's his policy to remain neutral.)
You may think what Elon says deserves only a slap on the wrist, but I don't think you see it from the perspective of the other half of the country; what he says may not be that bad to you but extremely hurtful to many others. He says unforgivable things continually. He's a very divisive loose cannon. No thanks.
A smart business owner would want to maximize the profits for himself and the rest of the shareholders. He (or she) would find ways he could appeal to everyone, maximizing sales. Not say things which drive away half of the customer base. It doesn't matter if you are republican, democrat or independent, everyone deserves respect. But a CEO calling half of the people in this country names and suggesting they be imprisoned isn't respectful at all, and frankly stupid.
Elon is not an elected official or policy maker. He doesn’t spend large sums trying to influence elections like the Koch brothers or George Soros.
I just scrolled back and re-read the conversation thread. Sorry I apologize, I thought you said it but it was ColoradoTribe instead. I got you two mixed up. So I thought that was the reason you were upset at me. But it was a different person. I was replying to him and you replied right after, and I got confused and thought you were him I guess.
But I see why you were upset and frustrated at me. Because I had you confused with someone else. I'm really sorry for my confusion & the mix up.
So yeah. Has anyone been following youtubers like Farzad Mesbahi (http://"https://www.youtube.com/@farzyness") ? They have made me very excited for the future of Tesla. I think if Tesla can crack the 25k mark, it will be done for all legacy auto. We will still see some high end manfucturers. And some that have invested in EVsm =, like Kia and Chevy/Ford might remain. But I think it will be a blood bath. I know Toyota and Honda are popular now, but they have really dropped the ball on EVs, and might get slaughtered.
I also think that the future value of Optimus, Full Self Driving, and AI is going to be unreal.
So yeah. Has anyone been following youtubers like Farzad Mesbahi (http://"https://www.youtube.com/@farzyness") ? They have made me very excited for the future of Tesla. I think if Tesla can crack the 25k mark, it will be done for all legacy auto. We will still see some high end manfucturers. And some that have invested in EVsm =, like Kia and Chevy/Ford might remain. But I think it will be a blood bath. I know Toyota and Honda are popular now, but they have really dropped the ball on EVs, and might get slaughtered.
I also think that the future value of Optimus, Full Self Driving, and AI is going to be unreal.
Isn't it interesting how the Tesla narrative is shifting from cars to A.I. at exactly the same time the financial media is cranking out pieces about AI and when potential AI chip maker NVDA is up 174% YTD to a PE ratio of 200.
Isn't it interestingI find it quite interesting that you abandoned the thread when your last sniping was taken apart and have decided to just try some other tactic.
Interesting article about current and upcoming Tesla production lines:Being willing to kick over the status quo is one of Tesla's great strengths and great weaknesses. Gigacastings are a big win. The original attempt to highly automate Fremont was a failure. Etc.
https://www.assemblymag.com/articles/97788-tesla-rethinks-the-assembly-line
Isn't it interesting how the Tesla narrative is shifting from cars to A.I. at exactly the same time the financial media is cranking out pieces about AI and when potential AI chip maker NVDA is up 174% YTD to a PE ratio of 200.
It is interesting that the world is finally waking up to the fact that Tesla is more than just a car company, like those in the know have been saying for years. Ford has woken up to realize Tesla's lead in charging tech and infrastructure is insurmountable.
Tesla will continue to execute on its plans and make steady progress regardless of how the media chooses to cover the company. For those just realizing the Tesla is also an AI company, welcome to the present state of realty.
So yeah. Has anyone been following youtubers like Farzad Mesbahi (http://"https://www.youtube.com/@farzyness") ? They have made me very excited for the future of Tesla. I think if Tesla can crack the 25k mark, it will be done for all legacy auto. We will still see some high end manfucturers. And some that have invested in EVsm =, like Kia and Chevy/Ford might remain. But I think it will be a blood bath. I know Toyota and Honda are popular now, but they have really dropped the ball on EVs, and might get slaughtered.
I also think that the future value of Optimus, Full Self Driving, and AI is going to be unreal.
For regulatory/nationalist reasons, there is zero chance that Tesla will end up driving Ford/Toyota/etc out of business.
Hell, we didn't let GM go out of business just 15 years ago, and they were just doing a bad job making cars/had too much debt.
-W
Isn't it interesting how the Tesla narrative is shifting from cars to A.I. at exactly the same time the financial media is cranking out pieces about AI and when potential AI chip maker NVDA is up 174% YTD to a PE ratio of 200.
It is interesting that the world is finally waking up to the fact that Tesla is more than just a car company, like those in the know have been saying for years. Ford has woken up to realize Tesla's lead in charging tech and infrastructure is insurmountable.
Tesla will continue to execute on its plans and make steady progress regardless of how the media chooses to cover the company. For those just realizing the Tesla is also an AI company, welcome to the present state of realty.
I find the fact that tesla is likely to have at least a little profit off of most EV sales across the globe via the charging network really exciting!
Interesting to watch how this plays out over the next few years, particularly in other countries as the us is lagging a bit in adoption of EVs so I reckon it'll pick up elsewhere first.
Isn't it interesting how the Tesla narrative is shifting from cars to A.I. at exactly the same time the financial media is cranking out pieces about AI and when potential AI chip maker NVDA is up 174% YTD to a PE ratio of 200.
It is interesting that the world is finally waking up to the fact that Tesla is more than just a car company, like those in the know have been saying for years. Ford has woken up to realize Tesla's lead in charging tech and infrastructure is insurmountable.
Tesla will continue to execute on its plans and make steady progress regardless of how the media chooses to cover the company. For those just realizing the Tesla is also an AI company, welcome to the present state of realty.
I find the fact that tesla is likely to have at least a little profit off of most EV sales across the globe via the charging network really exciting!
Interesting to watch how this plays out over the next few years, particularly in other countries as the us is lagging a bit in adoption of EVs so I reckon it'll pick up elsewhere first.
There's also an exclusivity that Tesla is losing. With a significant majority of the chargers in the US, especially along highways, Tesla had an inherent advantage when buyers were choosing a car (for travel, mostly, as commuters could charge at home). Someone considering an EV, who travels frequently, has one less concern about buying a Ford.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/tesla-will-open-its-supercharger-network-to-other-evs-in-canada/ar-AA1bQqzl
Isn't it interesting how the Tesla narrative is shifting from cars to A.I. at exactly the same time the financial media is cranking out pieces about AI and when potential AI chip maker NVDA is up 174% YTD to a PE ratio of 200.
It is interesting that the world is finally waking up to the fact that Tesla is more than just a car company, like those in the know have been saying for years. Ford has woken up to realize Tesla's lead in charging tech and infrastructure is insurmountable.
Tesla will continue to execute on its plans and make steady progress regardless of how the media chooses to cover the company. For those just realizing the Tesla is also an AI company, welcome to the present state of realty.
I find the fact that tesla is likely to have at least a little profit off of most EV sales across the globe via the charging network really exciting!
Interesting to watch how this plays out over the next few years, particularly in other countries as the us is lagging a bit in adoption of EVs so I reckon it'll pick up elsewhere first.
There's also an exclusivity that Tesla is losing. With a significant majority of the chargers in the US, especially along highways, Tesla had an inherent advantage when buyers were choosing a car (for travel, mostly, as commuters could charge at home). Someone considering an EV, who travels frequently, has one less concern about buying a Ford.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/tesla-will-open-its-supercharger-network-to-other-evs-in-canada/ar-AA1bQqzl
so you see tesla as the new ford+exxonmobile as a bad thing?
I see it as a positive.
There's also an exclusivity that Tesla is losing. With a significant majority of the chargers in the US, especially along highways, Tesla had an inherent advantage when buyers were choosing a car (for travel, mostly, as commuters could charge at home). Someone considering an EV, who travels frequently, has one less concern about buying a Ford.The CNBC interview revealed that even in a competitive EV market like China, Tesla is bottlenecked by production. Their competition doesn't matter until they can ramp up production further - and if EV adoption keeps growing that may remain a moving target.
It's a positive for EV consumers, it's a positive for CO2 emissions, and it's a positive for Ford. I'm not entirely certain it's a positive for Tesla. Tesla has a huge numerical advantage over CCS and, by many accounts, Tesla chargers are more reliable. It does provide diversification. Becoming the biggest charging station owner isn't a bad thing.By opening up the SC network, Tesla is eligible for a share of the billions of dollars in EV grants from the Feds.
It's a positive for EV consumers, it's a positive for CO2 emissions, and it's a positive for Ford. I'm not entirely certain it's a positive for Tesla. Tesla has a huge numerical advantage over CCS and, by many accounts, Tesla chargers are more reliable. It does provide diversification. Becoming the biggest charging station owner isn't a bad thing.By opening up the SC network, Tesla is eligible for a share of the billions of dollars in EV grants from the Feds.
Having spent a decent amount of time trying to deal with the wild-west of charging standards/stations (if only the Georgetown ChadeMo station didn't cause my Leaf to generate error codes and not charge every time I tried it...) I would love to see the Tesla system/network become the universal standard. IMO we will see that happen at some point - but as I've said, there's a hard limit on how much Tesla can control the system and charge for energy for antitrust reasons.
-W
I'm just not sure why you keep repeating this, no one is suggesting that tesla will be or should have a monopoly on anything. Cars, chargers, etc.
Tesla could wind up with a near monopoly ofgas stations- I mean electric chargers. That gives them the power to set prices, which is valuable (for consumers... not so much).
I'm just not sure why you keep repeating this, no one is suggesting that tesla will be or should have a monopoly on anything. Cars, chargers, etc.
Someone is indeed talking about Tesla potentially being at least "near" monopoly (if you have the power to set prices you're arguably past being "near" a monopoly from a regulatory standpoint). See below:Tesla could wind up with a near monopoly ofgas stations- I mean electric chargers. That gives them the power to set prices, which is valuable (for consumers... not so much).
Given that, it seems quite reasonable for waltworks to point out this wouldn't be allowed to happen from a political or regulatory standpoint.
I don't think I see a way for this prediction of monopoly pricing power to come true though even in the absence of regulatory intervention. Telsa's charging standard (NACS) is an open one, so if Tesla started charging well above market rates in the future, there would be nothing stopping other operators from opening compatible charging stations and undercutting Tesla's pricing to charge Tesla, Ford, and any other vehicles that adopt the standard.
The Ford deal is good news for Tesla. It's good news for non-Tesla EV drivers (the CCS network is abysmal). It is potentially modestly bad new for current Tesla drivers. But it's not a step towards the level of monopoly that would give Tesla pricing power over EV charging rates.
Tesla won't end up with a charging monopoly either. If they do, they'll just get regulated like any other utility, or broken up.Anti-trust is good in theory, but missing in practice. People use social media more than land line phones, yet Facebook hasn't been broken up in it's ~20 years. Instead, it was allowed to buy out rival Instagram. Land lines and cable internet are part of the telecom industry, which has its own problems with local monopolies.
-W
Good point about NACS, which I didn't know earlier. And it appears Electrify America competes with Tesla Superchargers, both of which support 250kw/hr or more. There's slower networks for shopping/dining (50kw/hr) or overnight (6.6kw/hr) which I assume charge lower fees. There's more competition in charging stations than I knew about before poking around.Tesla could wind up with a near monopoly ofI don't think I see a way for this prediction of monopoly pricing power to come true though even in the absence of regulatory intervention. Telsa's charging standard (NACS) is an open one, so if Tesla started charging well above market rates in the future, there would be nothing stopping other operators from opening compatible charging stations and undercutting Tesla's pricing to charge Tesla, Ford, and any other vehicles that adopt the standard.gas stations- I mean electric chargers. That gives them the power to set prices, which is valuable (for consumers... not so much).
The Ford deal is good news for Tesla. It's good news for non-Tesla EV drivers (the CCS network is abysmal). It is potentially modestly bad new for current Tesla drivers. But it's not a step towards the level of monopoly that would give Tesla pricing power over EV charging rates.
5:17 pm ET June 8, 2023 (MarketWatch)
By Claudia Assis
'Collaboration is a key part of our strategy,' GM CEO Barra says
Tesla Inc. has opened its fast-charging network to General Motors Co. electric vehicles, the companies said late Thursday, following a similar announcement late last month about Ford Motor Co.'s EVs.
A network of 12,000 Tesla "Superchargers" in North America will be open to GM EV drivers next year, initially requiring an adapter. Beginning in 2025, GM will equip its EVs with the same inlet standard for direct access, GM said.
I'm thinking that with Ford and GM now on board with NACS, their buddies in Washington are going to have to allow the NACS network to receive the government funding currently only going to CCS, which is, at this point, dead in the water.
Will be interesting to see what TSLA does tomorrow. Not that I'm concerned with day to day fluctuation.....I think Tesla is poised to become the biggest and most profitable company in the world in the next few years. Almost seems inevitable.
I'm thinking that with Ford and GM now on board with NACS, their buddies in Washington are going to have to allow the NACS network to receive the government funding currently only going to CCS, which is, at this point, dead in the water.Just as an FYI, the NEVI stations can already have NACS and get funded, they just have to be at least 50% CCS. Easy answer is to just hang two cables off each charger - one CCS1, one NACS.
I'm thinking that with Ford and GM now on board with NACS, their buddies in Washington are going to have to allow the NACS network to receive the government funding currently only going to CCS, which is, at this point, dead in the water.Just as an FYI, the NEVI stations can already have NACS and get funded, they just have to be at least 50% CCS. Easy answer is to just hang two cables off each charger - one CCS1, one NACS.
IIRC the requirement is that at least ONE charger per location takes local payment.I'm thinking that with Ford and GM now on board with NACS, their buddies in Washington are going to have to allow the NACS network to receive the government funding currently only going to CCS, which is, at this point, dead in the water.Just as an FYI, the NEVI stations can already have NACS and get funded, they just have to be at least 50% CCS. Easy answer is to just hang two cables off each charger - one CCS1, one NACS.
I think there may be other requirements such as a touch screen display and credit card readers, which seem to contribute greatly to the poor uptime of chargers with those features. There have a been a number of times that I could not charge on the CCS network due to card readers not working. Direct vehicle communication seems to be the more elegant solution:
Months ago, I predicted that Tesla will eventually transition from tech wonderstock to just another carmaker. I said their margins were going to shrink due to lots of electric competition arriving in 2023. In the past few months we've seen massive five-figure price cuts that will definitely affect margins. I said they'd have to start advertising, and Musk just this week said (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/musk-tells-tesla-shareholders-hes-not-stepping-down-as-ceo-considering-advertising) they'll have to start doing exactly that. It's mid-2023 and we still can't buy a Cybertruck three and a half years after its announcement. Meanwhile, Ford has been selling its e-truck for a year now.
There was a case being made 6, 12, and 24 months ago that Tesla had so many entrenched advantages and such a unique product that competitors couldn't possibly catch up. People were multiplying Tesla's projected car sale volume growth of the past against margins from 2021. Back then, Tesla could charge a premium while not advertising and while running operations at 100% to meet seemingly insatiable demand. That view is not aging well and I saw it coming.
TSLA 6-mo return: -7.14%
TSLA 12-mo return: -28.01%
TSLA 24-mo return: -11.72%
HMC 6-mo return: +18.52%
HMC 12-mo return: +13.23%
HMC 24-mo return: -6.55%
TM 6-mo return: -0.13%
TM 12-mo return: -10.75%
TM 24-mo return: -8.9%
Months ago, I predicted that Tesla will eventually transition from tech wonderstock to just another carmaker. I said their margins were going to shrink due to lots of electric competition arriving in 2023. In the past few months we've seen massive five-figure price cuts that will definitely affect margins. I said they'd have to start advertising, and Musk just this week said (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/musk-tells-tesla-shareholders-hes-not-stepping-down-as-ceo-considering-advertising) they'll have to start doing exactly that. It's mid-2023 and we still can't buy a Cybertruck three and a half years after its announcement. Meanwhile, Ford has been selling its e-truck for a year now.
There was a case being made 6, 12, and 24 months ago that Tesla had so many entrenched advantages and such a unique product that competitors couldn't possibly catch up. People were multiplying Tesla's projected car sale volume growth of the past against margins from 2021. Back then, Tesla could charge a premium while not advertising and while running operations at 100% to meet seemingly insatiable demand. That view is not aging well and I saw it coming.
TSLA 6-mo return: -7.14%
TSLA 12-mo return: -28.01%
TSLA 24-mo return: -11.72%
HMC 6-mo return: +18.52%
HMC 12-mo return: +13.23%
HMC 24-mo return: -6.55%
TM 6-mo return: -0.13%
TM 12-mo return: -10.75%
TM 24-mo return: -8.9%
Might be time to update your numbers. Stock up $80/share since you posted the above.
Congrats to the longs!
Rivian to Use Tesla's Charging Network, Follows Ford and GM -- Barrons.com
Another domino has fallen in the battle over North American electric-vehicle charging standards.
Rivian Automotive (ticker: RIVN) announced Tuesday it would adopt the Tesla (TSLA) charging plug and technology. Rivian owners also will be able to charge at Tesla's network of superchargers.
Past performance does not guarantee future results, obviously.
Having said that, I was not aware that Tesla was the top performing stock from 2012-2022 by any S&P company. Looking back, I'd say that probably means Tesla has been a good investment? I'm pretty sure they don't have room to repeat that kind of growth, but 10x would still be quite good.
I have a high stake in Tesla. About 10%(purchased cost) outside of my index funds. It has grown to 15%. If it goes 10x, it will make a not insignificant difference to my stache at retirement. If it is flat, it won't hurt things much.
Question I'm pondering, should I add to my position by DCA'ing 5-10% annually going forward for the next 6-8 years. Could be a $500k upside, with a risk of ~$125k not accumulated in the S&P.
LOL! They haven't been back since I responded to that one suggesting they really ought to include the 5 and 10 year numbers.Months ago, I predicted that Tesla will eventually transition from tech wonderstock to just another carmaker. I said their margins were going to shrink due to lots of electric competition arriving in 2023. In the past few months we've seen massive five-figure price cuts that will definitely affect margins. I said they'd have to start advertising, and Musk just this week said (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/musk-tells-tesla-shareholders-hes-not-stepping-down-as-ceo-considering-advertising) they'll have to start doing exactly that. It's mid-2023 and we still can't buy a Cybertruck three and a half years after its announcement. Meanwhile, Ford has been selling its e-truck for a year now.
There was a case being made 6, 12, and 24 months ago that Tesla had so many entrenched advantages and such a unique product that competitors couldn't possibly catch up. People were multiplying Tesla's projected car sale volume growth of the past against margins from 2021. Back then, Tesla could charge a premium while not advertising and while running operations at 100% to meet seemingly insatiable demand. That view is not aging well and I saw it coming.
TSLA 6-mo return: -7.14%
TSLA 12-mo return: -28.01%
TSLA 24-mo return: -11.72%
HMC 6-mo return: +18.52%
HMC 12-mo return: +13.23%
HMC 24-mo return: -6.55%
TM 6-mo return: -0.13%
TM 12-mo return: -10.75%
TM 24-mo return: -8.9%
Might be time to update your numbers. Stock up $80/share since you posted the above.
Congrats to the longs!
LOL! They haven't been back since I responded to that one suggesting they really ought to include the 5 and 10 year numbers.Months ago, I predicted that Tesla will eventually transition from tech wonderstock to just another carmaker. I said their margins were going to shrink due to lots of electric competition arriving in 2023. In the past few months we've seen massive five-figure price cuts that will definitely affect margins. I said they'd have to start advertising, and Musk just this week said (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/musk-tells-tesla-shareholders-hes-not-stepping-down-as-ceo-considering-advertising) they'll have to start doing exactly that. It's mid-2023 and we still can't buy a Cybertruck three and a half years after its announcement. Meanwhile, Ford has been selling its e-truck for a year now.
There was a case being made 6, 12, and 24 months ago that Tesla had so many entrenched advantages and such a unique product that competitors couldn't possibly catch up. People were multiplying Tesla's projected car sale volume growth of the past against margins from 2021. Back then, Tesla could charge a premium while not advertising and while running operations at 100% to meet seemingly insatiable demand. That view is not aging well and I saw it coming.
TSLA 6-mo return: -7.14%
TSLA 12-mo return: -28.01%
TSLA 24-mo return: -11.72%
HMC 6-mo return: +18.52%
HMC 12-mo return: +13.23%
HMC 24-mo return: -6.55%
TM 6-mo return: -0.13%
TM 12-mo return: -10.75%
TM 24-mo return: -8.9%
Might be time to update your numbers. Stock up $80/share since you posted the above.
Congrats to the longs!
Sorry I wasn't clear. They haven't been back to defend their apparent thesis that Tesla sucks as an investment.LOL! They haven't been back since I responded to that one suggesting they really ought to include the 5 and 10 year numbers.
Eh? ChpBstrd posted on May 31st. You even replied to that May 31st post. ???
I think it's time to resort to name calling. If you invest in Tesla... Cathie Wood agrees with you.Sorry I wasn't clear. They haven't been back to defend their apparent thesis that Tesla sucks as an investment.LOL! They haven't been back since I responded to that one suggesting they really ought to include the 5 and 10 year numbers.Eh? ChpBstrd posted on May 31st. You even replied to that May 31st post. ???
There is a sense that we're arguing over whether black is a good investment at the roulette table, and citing various wins and losses as evidence. Maybe the better question is whether roulette is an investment.I think it's time to resort to name calling. If you invest in Tesla... Cathie Wood agrees with you.Sorry I wasn't clear. They haven't been back to defend their apparent thesis that Tesla sucks as an investment.LOL! They haven't been back since I responded to that one suggesting they really ought to include the 5 and 10 year numbers.Eh? ChpBstrd posted on May 31st. You even replied to that May 31st post. ???
Someone who invested from 2020-2022 got hit with a -68% loss last year. Oh, that's three years, so I guess you have to mention the net return of +335%
I'm sure TSLA fans know that from 2013-2023, the median return was hit in 2017 at +45%. But the year before that, 2016, was TSLA's second worst year. You don't hear much about 2016, do you? Maybe investors need to figure out if +45% median performance is worth risking a drop of 7%?
There is a sense that we're arguing over whether black is a good investment at the roulette table, and citing various wins and losses as evidence. Maybe the better question is whether roulette is an investment.I think it's time to resort to name calling. If you invest in Tesla... Cathie Wood agrees with you.Sorry I wasn't clear. They haven't been back to defend their apparent thesis that Tesla sucks as an investment.LOL! They haven't been back since I responded to that one suggesting they really ought to include the 5 and 10 year numbers.Eh? ChpBstrd posted on May 31st. You even replied to that May 31st post. ???
Someone who invested from 2020-2022 got hit with a -68% loss last year. Oh, that's three years, so I guess you have to mention the net return of +335%
I'm sure TSLA fans know that from 2013-2023, the median return was hit in 2017 at +45%. But the year before that, 2016, was TSLA's second worst year. You don't hear much about 2016, do you? Maybe investors need to figure out if +45% median performance is worth risking a drop of 7%?
There is a sense that we're arguing over whether black is a good investment at the roulette table, and citing various wins and losses as evidence. Maybe the better question is whether roulette is an investment.I think it's time to resort to name calling. If you invest in Tesla... Cathie Wood agrees with you.Sorry I wasn't clear. They haven't been back to defend their apparent thesis that Tesla sucks as an investment.LOL! They haven't been back since I responded to that one suggesting they really ought to include the 5 and 10 year numbers.Eh? ChpBstrd posted on May 31st. You even replied to that May 31st post. ???
Someone who invested from 2020-2022 got hit with a -68% loss last year. Oh, that's three years, so I guess you have to mention the net return of +335%
I'm sure TSLA fans know that from 2013-2023, the median return was hit in 2017 at +45%. But the year before that, 2016, was TSLA's second worst year. You don't hear much about 2016, do you? Maybe investors need to figure out if +45% median performance is worth risking a drop of 7%?
Right, cause if you don’t personally endorse an investment then it’s gambling. And no one could have foreseen the rise of EVs or Tesla as the industry leader if you didn’t see it. It all happened by chance like the spin of the roulette wheel. You weren’t dead wrong for the past decade, Tesla investors got “lucky”. Whatever keeps your ego intact I guess.
There is no logical argument to be had on this topic. For any long term holder of Tesla stock it has been a lucrative investment.
6 Month - 110%
1 Yr - 10%
2 Yr - 18%
5 Yr - 1,025%
Since IPO - 20,000%
Since the start of this thread - 1,300%
There is a sense that we're arguing over whether black is a good investment at the roulette table, and citing various wins and losses as evidence. Maybe the better question is whether roulette is an investment.I think it's time to resort to name calling. If you invest in Tesla... Cathie Wood agrees with you.Sorry I wasn't clear. They haven't been back to defend their apparent thesis that Tesla sucks as an investment.LOL! They haven't been back since I responded to that one suggesting they really ought to include the 5 and 10 year numbers.Eh? ChpBstrd posted on May 31st. You even replied to that May 31st post. ???
Someone who invested from 2020-2022 got hit with a -68% loss last year. Oh, that's three years, so I guess you have to mention the net return of +335%
I'm sure TSLA fans know that from 2013-2023, the median return was hit in 2017 at +45%. But the year before that, 2016, was TSLA's second worst year. You don't hear much about 2016, do you? Maybe investors need to figure out if +45% median performance is worth risking a drop of 7%?
Right, cause if you don’t personally endorse an investment then it’s gambling. And no one could have foreseen the rise of EVs or Tesla as the industry leader if you didn’t see it. It all happened by chance like the spin of the roulette wheel. You weren’t dead wrong for the past decade, Tesla investors got “lucky”. Whatever keeps your ego intact I guess.
There is no logical argument to be had on this topic. For any long term holder of Tesla stock it has been a lucrative investment.
6 Month - 110%
1 Yr - 10%
2 Yr - 18%
5 Yr - 1,025%
Since IPO - 20,000%
Since the start of this thread - 1,300%
But the thread title is "is" not "was" so it is always forward looking. Tesla can both have been all those things you mentioned, and from this moment a complete gamble.
I wasn't involved in the prior argument, but if you want to lump me in, I disagree that buying shares of TSLA has a 50% chance of total loss.There is a sense that we're arguing over whether black is a good investment at the roulette table, and citing various wins and losses as evidence. Maybe the better question is whether roulette is an investment.I think it's time to resort to name calling. If you invest in Tesla... Cathie Wood agrees with you.Sorry I wasn't clear. They haven't been back to defend their apparent thesis that Tesla sucks as an investment.LOL! They haven't been back since I responded to that one suggesting they really ought to include the 5 and 10 year numbers.Eh? ChpBstrd posted on May 31st. You even replied to that May 31st post. ???
Someone who invested from 2020-2022 got hit with a -68% loss last year. Oh, that's three years, so I guess you have to mention the net return of +335%
I'm sure TSLA fans know that from 2013-2023, the median return was hit in 2017 at +45%. But the year before that, 2016, was TSLA's second worst year. You don't hear much about 2016, do you? Maybe investors need to figure out if +45% median performance is worth risking a drop of 7%?
There is a sense that we're arguing over whether black is a good investment at the roulette table, and citing various wins and losses as evidence. Maybe the better question is whether roulette is an investment.I think it's time to resort to name calling. If you invest in Tesla... Cathie Wood agrees with you.Sorry I wasn't clear. They haven't been back to defend their apparent thesis that Tesla sucks as an investment.LOL! They haven't been back since I responded to that one suggesting they really ought to include the 5 and 10 year numbers.Eh? ChpBstrd posted on May 31st. You even replied to that May 31st post. ???
Someone who invested from 2020-2022 got hit with a -68% loss last year. Oh, that's three years, so I guess you have to mention the net return of +335%
I'm sure TSLA fans know that from 2013-2023, the median return was hit in 2017 at +45%. But the year before that, 2016, was TSLA's second worst year. You don't hear much about 2016, do you? Maybe investors need to figure out if +45% median performance is worth risking a drop of 7%?
I'm listing my pro/con of buying individual shares of TSLA to figure out if I'm going to join the Tesla fan base. I gathered information from Yahoo Finance, Morningstar, and plugging "TSLA" into Portfolio Visualizer.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA?p=TSLA
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnas/tsla/valuation
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio
(pro) Median +45%/year performance 2013-2023. But we could see another -65% year like 2022.
(con) Forward P/E of 75 with inflation still a risk factor (like in 2022). Yet from 2013-2019 TSLA had no P/E ratio (negative), and went up over 15x.
(pro) Price/sales 10.3, close to 8.0 median. TSLA also had 10.3 price/sales in 2013, falling in 2014 and 2015 to hit 8.0. But it gained +145% between mid 2013 and mid 2015. Note price/sales was under 5 from 2016-2019, and has tended to fall over time.
(con) 2022 price drops of -38% in Q2 and -53% in Q4. TSLA stock is very volatile and risky while inflation and recession risk remain. Yet TSLA stock recovered +135% YTD, showing how resilient it can be (and wiping away much of 2022 losses).
(pro) Tesla is closer to autonomous driving than competitors. CEO Elon Musk claims it will happen this year... which he predicts every year. Besides technology, I expect regulatory hurdles for self-driving cars. But the uncertainty of when this happens makes it hard to price in, which benefits early buyers of the stock.
(con) Several analysts downgraded TSLA last week, with a median price target of $210. One analyst has a $200 target now... but had $750 last year, revealing their inconsistency. Even if analysts are right, taking a -18% hit is worth the upside.
(pro) Six months ago, experts were more concerned about winter 2023. Those concerns could turn into higher oil prices, which shifts consumer demand towards EV (and increases Tesla's profit per car).
Overall, I think TSLA stock is worth buying despite inflation risk.
I'm listing my pro/con of buying individual shares of TSLA to figure out if I'm going to join the Tesla fan base. I gathered information from Yahoo Finance, Morningstar, and plugging "TSLA" into Portfolio Visualizer.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA?p=TSLA
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnas/tsla/valuation
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio
(pro) Median +45%/year performance 2013-2023. But we could see another -65% year like 2022.
(con) Forward P/E of 75 with inflation still a risk factor (like in 2022). Yet from 2013-2019 TSLA had no P/E ratio (negative), and went up over 15x.
(pro) Price/sales 10.3, close to 8.0 median. TSLA also had 10.3 price/sales in 2013, falling in 2014 and 2015 to hit 8.0. But it gained +145% between mid 2013 and mid 2015. Note price/sales was under 5 from 2016-2019, and has tended to fall over time.
(con) 2022 price drops of -38% in Q2 and -53% in Q4. TSLA stock is very volatile and risky while inflation and recession risk remain. Yet TSLA stock recovered +135% YTD, showing how resilient it can be (and wiping away much of 2022 losses).
(pro) Tesla is closer to autonomous driving than competitors. CEO Elon Musk claims it will happen this year... which he predicts every year. Besides technology, I expect regulatory hurdles for self-driving cars. But the uncertainty of when this happens makes it hard to price in, which benefits early buyers of the stock.
(con) Several analysts downgraded TSLA last week, with a median price target of $210. One analyst has a $200 target now... but had $750 last year, revealing their inconsistency. Even if analysts are right, taking a -18% hit is worth the upside.
(pro) Six months ago, experts were more concerned about winter 2023. Those concerns could turn into higher oil prices, which shifts consumer demand towards EV (and increases Tesla's profit per car).
Overall, I think TSLA stock is worth buying despite inflation risk.
I personally half ignore the comical noise of "analysts" when it comes to Tesla stock. Tesla is one of the most heavily manipulated stock's in existence. It seems like half the articles published, which flip flop from day to day, are simply to attempt to manipulate the stock with no basis in reality.
I look at the fundamental value and execution of the company....50% YoY growth expected through 2030 until 20 million cars/year are produced. Highest profit margin of any company even after significantly lowering prices to keep demand high while interest rates skyrocketed.
GM announced that a $30-$40k mass produced, profitable EV is not possible within the next decade. Really? Ever heard of Tesla, lol.
CT release and production ramp imminent.
Next gen vehicle Giga factory underway in Mexico.
Lithium refining factory.
Grid level battery storage business ramping with contracts in the 100's of millions of $.
The above are all sure things that are happening now. Then you look at the maybe stuff like FSD or Optimus. These are not priced in but don't even have to be considered to see Tesla grow into the largest and most profitable company in the world. IMO.
Tesla is relentlessly innovating while already hopelessly ahead of legacy manufacturers. I really hope bankruptcy/government bailout isn't needed for GM/Ford in the upcoming years. They talk about attempting to be barely profitable by 2026...meanwhile Tesla will have their current S3XY lineup along with CT and next gen fully ramped with ~6 million EV/year production.
Nice. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are some good buying opportunities this year. I'm curious to see what Q2 P&D does to the share price considering they should come in with over 70% increase YoY. No doubt, the spinsters will find a way to put a negative spin on a 70% sales increase. Again, I all but ignore "analysts" when it comes to Tesla.I can make an upside case even from the DZ Bank analyst. Price target now is $200 (-19%), but last year was $750 (+205%). I don't know about you, but if someone offers me a coin flip of -19% or +205%, I'll take that coin flip.
Thanks for the correction - yes, DZ Bank's price target was from July 29 2022.Was that $750/share stock price target from before the 1:3 stock split that occurred last August?Nice. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are some good buying opportunities this year. I'm curious to see what Q2 P&D does to the share price considering they should come in with over 70% increase YoY. No doubt, the spinsters will find a way to put a negative spin on a 70% sales increase. Again, I all but ignore "analysts" when it comes to Tesla.I can make an upside case even from the DZ Bank analyst. Price target now is $200 (-19%), but last year was $750 (+205%). I don't know about you, but if someone offers me a coin flip of -19% or +205%, I'll take that coin flip.
Hello all. Have not read any of this thread but just returned from a month in Europe. Was somewhat surprised that I saw probably 10 Teslas for every Ford, Chrysler and GM car, combined. One other antedote: had an Uber ride in London in an electric Jaguar. Asked the driver about the car and he said it was superior to Tesla (no idea if he ever even drove one). He then gunned the accelerator and pinned my head against the headrest. Impressive. Carry on!
Tesla first mentioned Dojo in 2019 and has been installing in-house designed NN accelerator chips in every car since then. Dojo is finally going into production in July.
https://imgbb.com/99Jg1r8 (https://imgbb.com/99Jg1r8)
Tesla will have one of the largest, if not the largest, compute sources in the world. Nothing to see here I'm sure.
Any idea how much data is stored/transmitted? I'm not the most literate when it comes to computing hardware, but I believe early Model S and X had a well known MCU issue where the vehicles had insufficient on board RAM that quickly filled up as data was written. Their solution as far as I know was to increase the amount of RAM and reduce the frequency that data was recorded. There's still a finite amount of read/write cycles that the hardware can handle though right? Is this new computing power that's always sending and receiving data going to do something similar?
Hopefully they've learned from the past strategies and adopted new techniques for collection, storage and transmitting data. Otherwise all of these extra features just seem like bloatware for the end user that could be a pain.
Any idea how much data is stored/transmitted? I'm not the most literate when it comes to computing hardware, but I believe early Model S and X had a well known MCU issue where the vehicles had insufficient on board RAM that quickly filled up as data was written. Their solution as far as I know was to increase the amount of RAM and reduce the frequency that data was recorded. There's still a finite amount of read/write cycles that the hardware can handle though right? Is this new computing power that's always sending and receiving data going to do something similar?
Hopefully they've learned from the past strategies and adopted new techniques for collection, storage and transmitting data. Otherwise all of these extra features just seem like bloatware for the end user that could be a pain.
Dojo is a supercomputer to train neural nets and autolabel objects. It's not going to be constantly sending and receiving data with the cars in the way your post reads to me. I don't know what local storage for cars is but USB drives can be added to increase it. I've seen the cars uploading 20-30 GB of video data to Tesla at night, but in practice, the cars run on stable FSD Beta software releases that are pushed over time. Dojo will allow Tesla to exponentially increase the amount of video data processed from the fleet and accelerate the speed of improvement. Since Dojo is designed for that task, it could be much better and cheaper than racks of Nvidia GPUs that are general purpose for developing its large language model with video input like the large language model OpenAI developed with text and images. They've got a 7,360 Nvidia A-100 supercomputer now working on FSD, 7th largest in the world 10 months ago. With NNs, the more compute and data thrown at them, the better they get. They've got years of data and add more annually as production and deliveries grow, but they'll be adding a massive amount of additional compute component to the problem with Dojo. That's my layman's understanding of it.
With the amount of compute they're targeting on that chart (in one year), it looks like they could be developing the AWS for neural net training. Which has been alluded to in past AI Day presentations. Edit: They directly said this was their goal 3 years ago https://electrek.co/2020/09/21/tesla-offer-machine-learning-training-as-web-service-dojo-supercomputer/ (https://electrek.co/2020/09/21/tesla-offer-machine-learning-training-as-web-service-dojo-supercomputer/)
second-quarter deliveries numbers expected this weekend. Wall Street is looking for 445,000 deliveries for the period,https://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-reports-uptick-in-vehicle-deliveries-after-price-cuts-981863fd
https://www.wsj.com/articles/lordstown-motors-bankruptcy-sues-foxconn-5c7a0f46
AUTOS INDUSTRY
Lordstown Motors, Once Considered an Ohio Town’s Savior, Files for Bankruptcy
EV startup wooed investors during SPAC boom but failed to deliver on its lofty promises
I'm listing my pro/con of buying individual shares of TSLA to figure out if I'm going to join the Tesla fan base.While it's better to buy before a stock doubles (TSLA +108% YTD), it also confirms the stock can recover quickly. I bought shares of TSLA yesterday.
...
Overall, I think TSLA stock is worth buying despite inflation risk.
I mostly missed the boat on Amazon, a company I thought had promise Long long ago. A DCA approach there would have yielded a fortune
Tesla intends to be more than just a car company. It’s woefully unprofitable. However, so has been amazon throughout its life.
Could TSLA be a 10 bagger a decade from now? I’m considering allocating 6% of new money and buying in every week or month.
Thoughts?
I mostly missed the boat on Amazon, a company I thought had promise Long long ago. A DCA approach there would have yielded a fortune
Tesla intends to be more than just a car company. It’s woefully unprofitable. However, so has been amazon throughout its life.
Could TSLA be a 10 bagger a decade from now? I’m considering allocating 6% of new money and buying in every week or month.
Thoughts?
Prescient
Q2 earnings scheduled for July 18th. Not sure what to hope for, lol! If bad news will scoop up some more if a good dip :)
Q2 earnings scheduled for July 18th. Not sure what to hope for, lol! If bad news will scoop up some more if a good dip :)
Sales will be up, tracking 1.8M/year, but EPS will decrease. Profit margins may even be below Q1, based on discounts and incentives. European sales will be up slightly and China will be up 13-15% (but, again, revenue increases and profit/car decreases). US sales...? Probably up but not a lot, given Tesla's push to clear inventory and free charging.
While that's not bad news, the question is whether that's already priced into the stock. The Q1 profit margin surprise saw a drop from $207 on 3/31 to $164 a month later.
Quotesecond-quarter deliveries numbers expected this weekend. Wall Street is looking for 445,000 deliveries for the period,https://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-reports-uptick-in-vehicle-deliveries-after-price-cuts-981863fd
Tesla Deliveries Rise 83% in Quarter, Lifted by Price Cuts and Discounts -- WSJ
1:24 pm ET July 2, 2023 (Dow Jones) Print
By Rebecca Elliott
Tesla global deliveries surged 83% in the second quarter, helped by sharp price cuts and hefty discounts as the electric-car maker chases growth in an increasingly competitive marketplace.
The car company led by billionaire Elon Musk said Sunday that it delivered more than 466,000 vehicles to customers worldwide in the April-to-June period, a record quarter for sales.
Analysts surveyed by FactSet had forecasted Tesla would deliver about 445,000 vehicles.
Q2 earnings scheduled for July 18th. Not sure what to hope for, lol! If bad news will scoop up some more if a good dip :)
Sales will be up, tracking 1.8M/year, but EPS will decrease. Profit margins may even be below Q1, based on discounts and incentives. European sales will be up slightly and China will be up 13-15% (but, again, revenue increases and profit/car decreases). US sales...? Probably up but not a lot, given Tesla's push to clear inventory and free charging.
While that's not bad news, the question is whether that's already priced into the stock. The Q1 profit margin surprise saw a drop from $207 on 3/31 to $164 a month later.
Q2 earnings scheduled for July 18th. Not sure what to hope for, lol! If bad news will scoop up some more if a good dip :)
Sales will be up, tracking 1.8M/year, but EPS will decrease. Profit margins may even be below Q1, based on discounts and incentives. European sales will be up slightly and China will be up 13-15% (but, again, revenue increases and profit/car decreases). US sales...? Probably up but not a lot, given Tesla's push to clear inventory and free charging.
While that's not bad news, the question is whether that's already priced into the stock. The Q1 profit margin surprise saw a drop from $207 on 3/31 to $164 a month later.
Can I borrow your crystal ball?
I loved the Model 3 RWD I rented, but we need more room.
Similar to Ford, General Motors, and Volvo, Nissan will first provide NACS adapters for its 2024 model-year Ariyas, before integrating NACS ports into its 2025 model-year EVs.
https://www.autoweek.com/news/industry-news/a44588499/nissan-adopts-tesla-charging-for-electric-vehicles/
Didn't see this news about Nissan posted before...QuoteSimilar to Ford, General Motors, and Volvo, Nissan will first provide NACS adapters for its 2024 model-year Ariyas, before integrating NACS ports into its 2025 model-year EVs.
https://www.autoweek.com/news/industry-news/a44588499/nissan-adopts-tesla-charging-for-electric-vehicles/
With more companies jumping on the same connector standard and getting more access to the Tesla supercharging network, it will be interesting to see how that impacts Tesla sales and bottom line.
3) ASP and auto margins about as expected. EPS a clear beat. Tesla demonstrating that can grow earnings even as they lower ASP to grow market share.
I’m not predicting wether margins or ESP will go up or down compared to Q1, but I know enough to know what I don’t know.
5) Wall Street freaks out over planned production down time in Q3 to retool auto production lines. Again, missing the big picture that the retooled lines will produce more and/or cheaper EVs (project Highland).
KEVIN PAFFRATH: No, Wall Street never has it right when it comes to Tesla. They, however, are right in the short term, right? [...] They care about near-term margin, near-term profit.
And what did we hear? Well, we didn't hear, as you mentioned yourself, a date on the Cybertruck.
JOSH SCHAFER: And what did people care about on the call? Gross margins.
[...]
PRAS SUBRAMANIAN: --you see the trend? It's trending lower. The question is, is this the bottom? And there was no answer to that. The stock was up a lot. I'm not surprised of the 10% drop here.
Tesla has a tell when it comes to earnings results. I'll leave the reader to puzzle out what it is.
Tesla has a tell when it comes to earnings results. I'll leave the reader to puzzle out what it is.
On the kinds of swings TSLA makes, this guy should be very rich with this knowledge.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/07/26/teslas-record-breaking-earnings-report-what-every/Focusing on the first link, the conclusion seems bullish:
With shares remaining more than 30% off from all-time highs, investors today can add one of the clear-cut leaders of the future to portfolios at a tremendous discount relative to its long-term potential.
In response, Tesla stock dropped Friday, haha. Not surprising for anyone who follows the stock and the FUD, considering Tesla is the most manipulated stock in the world by both the market and the anti-Tesla/anti-EV marketing campaign.
A decade oil/gas/legacy anti-Tesla/anti-EV FUD has been very effective. Now, about half the population not only believes the FUD, but spread it for oil/gas/legacy for free....it's a standard response I get now:
-Too bad EV's are worse for the environment than gas cars
-Too bad all the power for your EV is generated by coal
-Too bad you have to spend $15-$25k for a new battery in 5 years
-Too bad it takes an hour to charge every time
-Too bad the batteries will be ruining the environment when they go bad in a few years and clutter landfills.
-etc, etc, etc.
In response, Tesla stock dropped Friday, haha. Not surprising for anyone who follows the stock and the FUD, considering Tesla is the most manipulated stock in the world by both the market and the anti-Tesla/anti-EV marketing campaign.
A decade oil/gas/legacy anti-Tesla/anti-EV FUD has been very effective. Now, about half the population not only believes the FUD, but spread it for oil/gas/legacy for free....it's a standard response I get now:
-Too bad EV's are worse for the environment than gas cars
-Too bad all the power for your EV is generated by coal
-Too bad you have to spend $15-$25k for a new battery in 5 years
-Too bad it takes an hour to charge every time
-Too bad the batteries will be ruining the environment when they go bad in a few years and clutter landfills.
-etc, etc, etc.
Wait, do you actually believe there's a coordinated effort against TSLA *and* that's why the stock dropped when you expected an increase? I mean, I get that conservatives tend to be anti-EV and make up all sorts of bogus arguments. But this isn't exactly the smart money investing crowd. And of course, the oil and gas industry hates EVs, but seems unlikely that they're manipulating shares of TSLA. Legacy auto makers are competitors, yet they've gone full-in on EVs, so I don't think we can call them anti-EV. And this is part of the problem for TSLA: Lots of very well made EVs coming to market, lots of competition. A much more plausible explanation is that the Model 3 refresh was more incremental than expected, still no pricing/specs for Cybertruck, and recent price increases have make the stock too rich for many investors.
I thought the drop was because elon was being an mega ass again.
In ways that millions will not buy teslas, assishness....
I wouldn’t call it a conspiracy but Tesla is very poorly understood by Wall Street analysts.
Thus you see significant drops from nothingburger short term events or from things that should be good in the long term, like refreshing a product and making it significantly better.
The analysts said the Model 3′s peers in China include XPeng’s P7, BYD’s Han and Seal and Leapmotor’s C01 electric cars.
Considering the increased starting price, initial sales volume for the Model 3 refresh in China may not be as high as previously expected, they said. Still, the analysts remain positive on the outlook for the vehicle’s sales this quarter as consumers have been waiting for the upgrade.
A reporter who "covers Tesla, new vehicle tech and climate tech for CNBC.com" wrote an article titled
"Tesla shares close down 5% after price cuts, Model 3 refresh".
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/01/tesla-shares-close-down-5percent-after-price-cuts-model-3-refresh.html
Most EVs are sold in China, making it a vital market for Tesla. When Tesla cut prices earlier this year, it raised concerns the highly competitive Chinese market was the cause. Further price cuts reinforce those concerns.QuoteThe analysts said the Model 3′s peers in China include XPeng’s P7, BYD’s Han and Seal and Leapmotor’s C01 electric cars.
Considering the increased starting price, initial sales volume for the Model 3 refresh in China may not be as high as previously expected, they said. Still, the analysts remain positive on the outlook for the vehicle’s sales this quarter as consumers have been waiting for the upgrade.
Tesla also faces further pricing pressure as China's economy slows.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/why-is-chinas-economy-slowing-down-could-it-get-worse-2023-09-01/
UPDATE: From Twitter/X, a list of price changes this year.
https://twitter.com/biancoresearch/status/1698117692455084277
I don't think the concern is that Tesla won't solve FSD, the concern is that either it takes several decades, or that someone else (or possibly a couple others) does it first.
-W
Been looking at inventory on the Tesla site the last few days.
Wasn't surprised at $3k off a Model 3 RWD, what with the refresh coming out soon, though to me the refreshed model is less attractive than the current model (I like blinkers on a stalk).
I was surprised with $3k off a Model Y AWD, and others are reporting $5k+ off in other locales.
So, they are discounting inventory on their top selling models. Is that a concern?
I don't think the concern is that Tesla won't solve FSD, the concern is that either it takes several decades, or that someone else (or possibly a couple others) does it first.AI seems to be progressing on a longer timeframe than most computing applications.
I disagree with that characterization of AI as not accelerating over time.
Down on Friday. Up yesterday. Down today. Explanations for daily moves are nonsense. On hardware, they aren't slowing down on auto scaling so they get long term advances on purchase contracts for raw materials and batteries as the largest purchaser in the world in addition to vertical scaling.The stock price of the 6th largest public U.S. company is "nonsense"?
BYD, a Chinese conglomerate, is the largest EV company based on the nearly 1.9 million EVs it manufactured in 2022, according to EV-Volumes. About half of those were plug-in hybrid EVs (PHEVs), and the other half were battery electric vehicles (BEVs).https://www.fool.com/research/largest-ev-companies/
Tesla built 1.3 million EVs in 2022, the most by a U.S. company and second most in the world. Tesla built the highest number of battery electric vehicles in 2022.
Down on Friday. Up yesterday. Down today. Explanations for daily moves are nonsense. On hardware, they aren't slowing down on auto scaling so they get long term advances on purchase contracts for raw materials and batteries as the largest purchaser in the world in addition to vertical scaling.The stock price of the 6th largest public U.S. company is "nonsense"?
Speaking of nonsense, your claim that Tesla is "the largest purchaser in the world" isn't accurate, and probably reflects a blind spot for Chinese EV vehicle makers.QuoteBYD, a Chinese conglomerate, is the largest EV company based on the nearly 1.9 million EVs it manufactured in 2022, according to EV-Volumes. About half of those were plug-in hybrid EVs (PHEVs), and the other half were battery electric vehicles (BEVs).https://www.fool.com/research/largest-ev-companies/
Tesla built 1.3 million EVs in 2022, the most by a U.S. company and second most in the world. Tesla built the highest number of battery electric vehicles in 2022.
I disagree with that characterization of AI as not accelerating over time.
The one thing that stood out to me is that the thought and industry leaders in this field took a collective crap in their pants at some sudden leaps forward in the past year or so. And I'm willing to bet there is plenty that is not salient to the lay public here, or even those in the know under a certain level.
More signs of economic nationalism seem to be appearing, and that is bad for US tech stocks which are dependent upon China for some percentage of their growth or for manufacturing.
Apple's iPhones seem to have been hit with two zero-day vulnerabilities (https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/apple/apple-discloses-2-new-zero-days-exploited-to-attack-iphones-macs/) at the same time as the Chinese government is banning their workers (https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/9/11/why-is-china-banning-officials-and-state-employees-from-using-iphones) from using iPhones. These events just happened to coincide with Huawei's release of the Mate 60 smartphone (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/huawei-new-phone-mate-60-pro-apple-stock/#), which arguably out-specs the new iPhone 15 and features 7nm chips.
This pattern of state discrimination in favor of national champions is likely to extend to Tesla's market share in China in one way or another. Maybe it will be narrowly targeted regulations, technology transfers, government contracts, subsidies, or whatever, but it seems unlikely China will let American shareholders earn a fortune taking significant market share in their local market. That chapter of the growth narrative for US stocks probably needs to be quietly deleted.
So your only point is that Tesla has bigger batteries? Not that Chinese consumers are preferring BYD over Tesla when they buy EVs? That seems a bit short sighted, considering it is Chinese consumers rather than you who make the purchase decision. I start to see why you can't make sense of Tesla's price moves, either, since you're ignoring the competitive landscape in China. That was my main reason for posting, to make people aware that Tesla in the U.S. isn't the sole story of Tesla's stock overall.Speaking of nonsense, your claim that Tesla is "the largest purchaser in the world" isn't accurate, and probably reflects a blind spot for Chinese EV vehicle makers.So half of the "EVs" BYD make have 7kwh - 10kwh battery packs while all of Tesla's are > 50kwh. Should probably do the math on those volumes and battery sizes before that response and Tesla is producing 1.8 million this year.QuoteBYD, a Chinese conglomerate, is the largest EV company based on the nearly 1.9 million EVs it manufactured in 2022, according to EV-Volumes. About half of those were plug-in hybrid EVs (PHEVs), and the other half were battery electric vehicles (BEVs).https://www.fool.com/research/largest-ev-companies/
Tesla built 1.3 million EVs in 2022, the most by a U.S. company and second most in the world. Tesla built the highest number of battery electric vehicles in 2022.
So your only point is that Tesla has bigger batteries? Not that Chinese consumers are preferring BYD over Tesla when they buy EVs? That seems a bit short sighted, considering it is Chinese consumers rather than you who make the purchase decision. I start to see why you can't make sense of Tesla's price moves, either, since you're ignoring the competitive landscape in China. That was my main reason for posting, to make people aware that Tesla in the U.S. isn't the sole story of Tesla's stock overall.Speaking of nonsense, your claim that Tesla is "the largest purchaser in the world" isn't accurate, and probably reflects a blind spot for Chinese EV vehicle makers.So half of the "EVs" BYD make have 7kwh - 10kwh battery packs while all of Tesla's are > 50kwh. Should probably do the math on those volumes and battery sizes before that response and Tesla is producing 1.8 million this year.QuoteBYD, a Chinese conglomerate, is the largest EV company based on the nearly 1.9 million EVs it manufactured in 2022, according to EV-Volumes. About half of those were plug-in hybrid EVs (PHEVs), and the other half were battery electric vehicles (BEVs).https://www.fool.com/research/largest-ev-companies/
Tesla built 1.3 million EVs in 2022, the most by a U.S. company and second most in the world. Tesla built the highest number of battery electric vehicles in 2022.
I start to see why you can't make sense of Tesla's price moves, either, since you're ignoring the competitive landscape in China.
So your only point is that Tesla has bigger batteries? Not that Chinese consumers are preferring BYD over Tesla when they buy EVs? That seems a bit short sighted, considering it is Chinese consumers rather than you who make the purchase decision. I start to see why you can't make sense of Tesla's price moves, either, since you're ignoring the competitive landscape in China. That was my main reason for posting, to make people aware that Tesla in the U.S. isn't the sole story of Tesla's stock overall.Comparing sales volume between a $5k enclosed golf cart and a $40k vehicle purely by ignoring revenue in favor of number of vehicles.... is just silly.
Comparing sales volume between a $5k enclosed golf cart and a $40k vehicle purely by ignoring revenue in favor of number of vehicles.... is just silly.You're just making stuff up. The bestselling BYD Qin Plus costs $18k to $25k and has a top speed of over 90 mph. All of the top 3 BYD EVs have top speeds over 90 mph (150kph).
For those with a WSJ subscription: They put together an interactive valuation tool for TSLA. Plug in your own numbers and see the 2030 discounted cash flow valuation. How much is Tesla worth? You decide! (https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/how-much-is-tesla-worth-you-decide-78b25ab1)
Key Variables (for 2030, dollars in 2023):
- Number of cars sold
- Average price per car
- Operating margin
- Average cost of capital
- Value of other operations
Default assumptions are 1) 7M cars 2) $30k/car 3) 10% operating margin 4) 10% avg. cost of capital 5) $200B from other operations. For a total enterprise value of $381B.
Changing (1) to 20M cars sold (almost 2x what Toyota sold last year) bumps the valuation to $647B, which gets it closer to present market cap. If Tesla can maintain current operating margins (which have been declining) while selling 20M cars then it can attain a $1T valuation.
Changing (1) to 10M cars sold and (3) to 18% operating margin gives a valuation of $723B, so right around current market cap.
Interesting tool, and of course you're free to plug in whatever assumptions you want.
But Ford, GM, Honda, Jaguar, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz, Polestar, Rivian, and Volvo have said that their vehicles will be able to use Tesla's Superchargers starting in 2024, and EV experts expect more automakers to follow suit.Sep 22, 2023
For those with a WSJ subscription: They put together an interactive valuation tool for TSLA. Plug in your own numbers and see the 2030 discounted cash flow valuation. How much is Tesla worth? You decide! (https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/how-much-is-tesla-worth-you-decide-78b25ab1)
Key Variables (for 2030, dollars in 2023):
- Number of cars sold
- Average price per car
- Operating margin
- Average cost of capital
- Value of other operations
Default assumptions are 1) 7M cars 2) $30k/car 3) 10% operating margin 4) 10% avg. cost of capital 5) $200B from other operations. For a total enterprise value of $381B.
Changing (1) to 20M cars sold (almost 2x what Toyota sold last year) bumps the valuation to $647B, which gets it closer to present market cap. If Tesla can maintain current operating margins (which have been declining) while selling 20M cars then it can attain a $1T valuation.
Changing (1) to 10M cars sold and (3) to 18% operating margin gives a valuation of $723B, so right around current market cap.
Interesting tool, and of course you're free to plug in whatever assumptions you want.
I do not have a WSJ sub......how much "other" are you inputting for energy division? supercharger network, storage, solar/roofing, etc? With ford, GM, etc... signing on for the superchargers, I'm think there is going to be a lot of money there.QuoteBut Ford, GM, Honda, Jaguar, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz, Polestar, Rivian, and Volvo have said that their vehicles will be able to use Tesla's Superchargers starting in 2024, and EV experts expect more automakers to follow suit.Sep 22, 2023
For those with a WSJ subscription: They put together an interactive valuation tool for TSLA. Plug in your own numbers and see the 2030 discounted cash flow valuation. How much is Tesla worth? You decide! (https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/how-much-is-tesla-worth-you-decide-78b25ab1)
Key Variables (for 2030, dollars in 2023):
- Number of cars sold
- Average price per car
- Operating margin
- Average cost of capital
- Value of other operations
Default assumptions are 1) 7M cars 2) $30k/car 3) 10% operating margin 4) 10% avg. cost of capital 5) $200B from other operations. For a total enterprise value of $381B.
Changing (1) to 20M cars sold (almost 2x what Toyota sold last year) bumps the valuation to $647B, which gets it closer to present market cap. If Tesla can maintain current operating margins (which have been declining) while selling 20M cars then it can attain a $1T valuation.
Changing (1) to 10M cars sold and (3) to 18% operating margin gives a valuation of $723B, so right around current market cap.
Interesting tool, and of course you're free to plug in whatever assumptions you want.
I do not have a WSJ sub......how much "other" are you inputting for energy division? supercharger network, storage, solar/roofing, etc? With ford, GM, etc... signing on for the superchargers, I'm think there is going to be a lot of money there.QuoteBut Ford, GM, Honda, Jaguar, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz, Polestar, Rivian, and Volvo have said that their vehicles will be able to use Tesla's Superchargers starting in 2024, and EV experts expect more automakers to follow suit.Sep 22, 2023
Their baseline scenario values "other" at $200M, which is for everything in Tesla outside the core automotive business. This amount simply gets added to the discounted cash flow valuation. It's left as "other" because these are unproved technologies and business models, so there's very little to base estimates on.
Hadn't looked at the default WSJ variables but they are beyond absurd.
30k average price in 2030! with 10% margins? And then practically nothing for the other rapidly growing businesses?
I would happily bet a lot of money that this baseline would be exceeded; if you doubled their profit assumptions would still feel its a fantastic bet to exceed.
Hadn't looked at the default WSJ variables but they are beyond absurd.Agreed, someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Tesla energy and storage revenue for Q3 2023 was just over 1.5 billion with 13% margin. Margins and revenue for energy and storage have both been increasing rapidly in recent quarters. Insurance and super charging network revenue are also on the rise. A baseline of 200 million for 2030 is absurd when energy and storage alone generated around 195 million just last quarter. The WSJ is assuming a business sector that grew over 100% YOY will now flatline for 7 years?
30k average price in 2030! with 10% margins? And then practically nothing for the other rapidly growing businesses?
I would happily bet a lot of money that this baseline would be exceeded; if you doubled their profit assumptions would still feel its a fantastic bet to exceed.
Hadn't looked at the default WSJ variables but they are beyond absurd.
30k average price in 2030! with 10% margins? And then practically nothing for the other rapidly growing businesses?
I would happily bet a lot of money that this baseline would be exceeded; if you doubled their profit assumptions would still feel its a fantastic bet to exceed.
Hadn't looked at the default WSJ variables but they are beyond absurd.
30k average price in 2030! with 10% margins? And then practically nothing for the other rapidly growing businesses?
I would happily bet a lot of money that this baseline would be exceeded; if you doubled their profit assumptions would still feel its a fantastic bet to exceed.
Well, the idea is that users can plug in their own assumptions.
Plugging in $40k/car (reminder, 2023 prices) and 14% operating margin (Tesla's current) brings the valuation to $660B, which is still less than today's market cap.
Sorry, I was thinking of the Wuling Mini EV and confused Chinese manufacturers.Comparing sales volume between a $5k enclosed golf cart and a $40k vehicle purely by ignoring revenue in favor of number of vehicles.... is just silly.You're just making stuff up. The bestselling BYD Qin Plus costs $18k to $25k and has a top speed of over 90 mph. All of the top 3 BYD EVs have top speeds over 90 mph (150kph).
Hadn't looked at the default WSJ variables but they are beyond absurd.
30k average price in 2030! with 10% margins? And then practically nothing for the other rapidly growing businesses?
I would happily bet a lot of money that this baseline would be exceeded; if you doubled their profit assumptions would still feel its a fantastic bet to exceed.
Well, the idea is that users can plug in their own assumptions.
Plugging in $40k/car (reminder, 2023 prices) and 14% operating margin (Tesla's current) brings the valuation to $660B, which is still less than today's market cap.
Those would still be bearish assumptions.
The fact that there no modeling in the calculation outside of vehicles is just silly.
FSD and energy are already significant high growth revenue streams.
Sure they have “other” but if you leave so much of the business out out it’s not much of a model, and then the so called base case is extremely bearish even for the limited aspects of the business that are included.
Hadn't looked at the default WSJ variables but they are beyond absurd.
30k average price in 2030! with 10% margins? And then practically nothing for the other rapidly growing businesses?
I would happily bet a lot of money that this baseline would be exceeded; if you doubled their profit assumptions would still feel its a fantastic bet to exceed.
Well, the idea is that users can plug in their own assumptions.
Plugging in $40k/car (reminder, 2023 prices) and 14% operating margin (Tesla's current) brings the valuation to $660B, which is still less than today's market cap.
Those would still be bearish assumptions.
The fact that there no modeling in the calculation outside of vehicles is just silly.
FSD and energy are already significant high growth revenue streams.
Sure they have “other” but if you leave so much of the business out out it’s not much of a model, and then the so called base case is extremely bearish even for the limited aspects of the business that are included.
Tesla Energy accounts for around 7% of revenues.
What comes in from FSD is mostly deferred revenue, what had grown to somewhere in the ballpark of $1B before Tesla started recognizing some of this revenue.
Of course, "other" could grow to $500B or $1T businesses, but these are currently relatively small revenue streams which are difficult to value. Investors are either assuming very optimistic numbers for the automotive business, or they're banking on the "other" category exploding exponentially over the long term.
Mega pack deployments (energy storage) grew 222% YOY in Q2.
Their first factory is still scaling up and they are in process of building a second. They have an order backlog of over 2 years and likely can support explosive growth for the next decade as the energy grid transitions to solar and wind which are much cheaper to produce. But require either storage or extremely expensive coal or gas peaker plants.
The analyst s that follow Tesla have modelled it in, as well as supercharger which is also virtually assured of long term high growth as its now industry standard in North America.
Mega pack deployments (energy storage) grew 222% YOY in Q2.
Their first factory is still scaling up and they are in process of building a second. They have an order backlog of over 2 years and likely can support explosive growth for the next decade as the energy grid transitions to solar and wind which are much cheaper to produce. But require either storage or extremely expensive coal or gas peaker plants.
The analyst s that follow Tesla have modelled it in, as well as supercharger which is also virtually assured of long term high growth as its now industry standard in North America.
That's great, you're free to value that business however you think best. The WSJ link (https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/how-much-is-tesla-worth-you-decide-78b25ab1) is just a tool, and as such folks are encouraged to enter their own assumptions.
It is interesting though, that the discussion has drifted from Tesla's core automotive business as prices and margins have decreased while real competition as increased. Certainly, messing around with the WSJ tool, it's difficult to arrive at a much higher value for TSLA without very high assumptions that don't pass the giggle-test. So now the focus is on the "other" category. Can Tesla catch lightning in a bottle again with its energy business? Of course, anything is possible. But what are those odds and what is the potential value? How one answers that largely answers the question of this thread.
Mega pack deployments (energy storage) grew 222% YOY in Q2.
Their first factory is still scaling up and they are in process of building a second. They have an order backlog of over 2 years and likely can support explosive growth for the next decade as the energy grid transitions to solar and wind which are much cheaper to produce. But require either storage or extremely expensive coal or gas peaker plants.
The analyst s that follow Tesla have modelled it in, as well as supercharger which is also virtually assured of long term high growth as its now industry standard in North America.
That's great, you're free to value that business however you think best. The WSJ link (https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/how-much-is-tesla-worth-you-decide-78b25ab1) is just a tool, and as such folks are encouraged to enter their own assumptions.
It is interesting though, that the discussion has drifted from Tesla's core automotive business as prices and margins have decreased while real competition as increased. Certainly, messing around with the WSJ tool, it's difficult to arrive at a much higher value for TSLA without very high assumptions that don't pass the giggle-test. So now the focus is on the "other" category. Can Tesla catch lightning in a bottle again with its energy business? Of course, anything is possible. But what are those odds and what is the potential value? How one answers that largely answers the question of this thread.
The BESS market growth projections are all over the place; McKinsey suggests it'll be a $120B-150B market in 2030.
However, unlike EVs, there are many strong players in the BESS space. CATL, BYD, Siemens, Hitachi, LG, Tesla, and Panasonic, among others, are installing BESS systems around the world.
While it's a growing market, and it'll be profitable, it's very fragmented. Tesla isn't currently the leader in BESS and it may never be because the largest market is Asia, where CATL and BYD reign.
The BESS market growth projections are all over the place; McKinsey suggests it'll be a $120B-150B market in 2030.In 1980, McKinsey & Company was commissioned by AT&T (whose Bell Labs had invented cellular telephony) to forecast cell phone penetration in the U.S. by 2000. The consultant's prediction, 900,000 subscribers, was less than 1% of the actual figure, 109 Million.
However, unlike EVs, there are many strong players in the BESS space. CATL, BYD, Siemens, Hitachi, LG, Tesla, and Panasonic, among others, are installing BESS systems around the world.
While it's a growing market, and it'll be profitable, it's very fragmented. Tesla isn't currently the leader in BESS and it may never be because the largest market is Asia, where CATL and BYD reign.
The BESS market growth projections are all over the place; McKinsey suggests it'll be a $120B-150B market in 2030.In 1980, McKinsey & Company was commissioned by AT&T (whose Bell Labs had invented cellular telephony) to forecast cell phone penetration in the U.S. by 2000. The consultant's prediction, 900,000 subscribers, was less than 1% of the actual figure, 109 Million.
However, unlike EVs, there are many strong players in the BESS space. CATL, BYD, Siemens, Hitachi, LG, Tesla, and Panasonic, among others, are installing BESS systems around the world.
While it's a growing market, and it'll be profitable, it's very fragmented. Tesla isn't currently the leader in BESS and it may never be because the largest market is Asia, where CATL and BYD reign.
This is standard practice for these consulting companies - they simply cannot deal with disruptive technologies and chronically underpredict by massive amounts. This is not unique to consultants: EIA and IEA massively underpredicted the increase in utility scale wind and solar power. IEA has been doing this for decades - and so egregiously, their "30 year" prediction for solar is usually exceeded within 2 years of making the projection.
The utility scale battery market is changing explosively fast. In just the past 3 years (mid-2020 to mid-2023) the backlog of battery projects under study by ERCOT (studies paid for by developers who want to build the projects) has gone from 18GW to 112GW. Increase of 6x in just 3 years - and in the meantime, about 5GW have actually been installed.
South Korean automakers Kia, Hyundai and luxury auto brand Genesis announced Thursday that their electric vehicles in the United States will have Tesla-style charging ports, starting in the last quarter of 2024. This will allow owners of those vehicles to seamlessly use Tesla chargers.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/05/business/hyundai-tesla-ev-charging/index.htmlQuoteSouth Korean automakers Kia, Hyundai and luxury auto brand Genesis announced Thursday that their electric vehicles in the United States will have Tesla-style charging ports, starting in the last quarter of 2024. This will allow owners of those vehicles to seamlessly use Tesla chargers.
Sorry about the recent slide, everyone. My 11 yo son finally saved up enough (from Ebaying junk he finds!) to buy a share of Tesla on... Monday.
I have not told him about the current price, we've discussed investing for the long term already and he's just excited to own a share. He already forgot about the couple hundred bucks of ESGV he bought this summer, basically, so hopefully I can surprise him when he's 30 with a bunch of his own money or something.
But yeah, it'll be an interesting next year or two for Tesla.
-W
Tesla's selling a bunch of chargers to BP?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/26/business/bp-buys-usd100-million-worth-of-tesla-chargers/index.html#:~:text=Oil%20and%20gas%20company%20BP,to%20an%20announcement%20from%20BP.
this seems.....a weird development!
Sorry about the recent slide, everyone. My 11 yo son finally saved up enough (from Ebaying junk he finds!) to buy a share of Tesla on... Monday.Was the 11 year old excited about Tesla and someday owning such a car in the future, or was it just a speculative investment for him?
I have not told him about the current price, we've discussed investing for the long term already and he's just excited to own a share. He already forgot about the couple hundred bucks of ESGV he bought this summer, basically, so hopefully I can surprise him when he's 30 with a bunch of his own money or something.
But yeah, it'll be an interesting next year or two for Tesla.
-W
Was the 11 year old excited about Tesla and someday owning such a car in the future, or was it just a speculative investment for him?
Was the 11 year old excited about Tesla and someday owning such a car in the future, or was it just a speculative investment for him?
I think a little of both. He did initially buy some index funds earlier this year and I've talked to him about that but he is definitely a Tesla fanboy (in this case literally, not merely figuratively) as well.
-W
Good piece: Damodaran's Tesla Valuation
Tesla in November 2023: Story twists & turns, with value consequences!
https://aswathdamodaran.substack.com/p/tesla-in-november-2023-story-twists
At $197 a share, Tesla remains over valued, at least based on my story, but a stock that has dropped $54 in price in the last few weeks could very well drop another $20 in the next few. To capture that possibility, I have a limit buy at my estimated value of $180, with the acceptance that it may never hit that price in this iteration.
Yea, the lack of confidence is off putting. That's why all the YouTube stock pickers - and Cramer too! - show 100% enthusiasm and excitement when they find a company they like. YMMV with investing based on influencers' confidence levels.Good piece: Damodaran's Tesla ValuationFrom the second paragraph:
Tesla in November 2023: Story twists & turns, with value consequences!
https://aswathdamodaran.substack.com/p/tesla-in-november-2023-story-twists
At $197 a share, Tesla remains over valued, at least based on my story, but a stock that has dropped $54 in price in the last few weeks could very well drop another $20 in the next few. To capture that possibility, I have a limit buy at my estimated value of $180, with the acceptance that it may never hit that price in this iteration.
When I write and teach valuation, I describe it as a craft, and there are very few companies that I enjoy practicing that craft more than I do with Tesla. Along the way, I have been wrong often on the company, and if you are one of those who only reads valuations by people who get it right all the time, you should skip the rest of this post, because I will cheerfully admit that I will be wrong again, though I don't know in which direction.
Stopped reading at that point. Would seem odd to take advice from someone who has been wrong on Tesla for the past decade. Sure, he might end up being right someday, but even broken clocks are accurate twice a day.
"BREAKING: Senator Tommy Tuberville just bought puts against Elon Musk's Tesla.
He bought $50k in $TSLA $190 puts expiring 12/15/2023"
https://twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/1725281994844831865
The leveraged, negative exposure to $TSLA was actually purchased a month ago, and expires in another month.
For context, $80B/year would be a bit more than 2x the combined worldwide revenues of Uber + Lyft.
One can certainly argue it should be higher or lower than that. But $80B/year (and presumably much higher profit margins than current ride share companies that have to pay drivers) is a respectable -- more than respectable, huge -- number by the standards of companies that operate in the same space currently.
For context, $80B/year would be a bit more than 2x the combined worldwide revenues of Uber + Lyft.
One can certainly argue it should be higher or lower than that. But $80B/year (and presumably much higher profit margins than current ride share companies that have to pay drivers) is a respectable -- more than respectable, huge -- number by the standards of companies that operate in the same space currently.
I think that like with many Tesla businesses, the idea of $80b being too low rests on the idea that Robotaxis will replace Lyft/Uber/YellowCab and simultaneously create a new market by being cheaper/easier than owning your own car (or purchasing a car to begin with), so everyone will just take a Robotaxi everywhere and Tesla will be rolling in money.
There's some logic there. A lot of the world doesn't own a car, and most cars sit idle 95% of the time. So a really good robotaxi fleet with some smart dispatching software could theoretically be way more efficient.
I can see this being plausible but probably not in a single decade. There are a lot of people who for whatever reason like to drive/own their own car and probably most folks older than Millennial age will have to have their keyfobs pried from their cold dead hands. .
-W
"BREAKING: Senator Tommy Tuberville just bought puts against Elon Musk's Tesla.I don't trust Twitter as a news source. Is there another source?
He bought $50k in $TSLA $190 puts expiring 12/15/2023"
https://twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/1725281994844831865
The leveraged, negative exposure to $TSLA was actually purchased a month ago, and expires in another month.
For context, $80B/year would be a bit more than 2x the combined worldwide revenues of Uber + Lyft.
One can certainly argue it should be higher or lower than that. But $80B/year (and presumably much higher profit margins than current ride share companies that have to pay drivers) is a respectable -- more than respectable, huge -- number by the standards of companies that operate in the same space currently.
I think that like with many Tesla businesses, the idea of $80b being too low rests on the idea that Robotaxis will replace Lyft/Uber/YellowCab and simultaneously create a new market by being cheaper/easier than owning your own car (or purchasing a car to begin with), so everyone will just take a Robotaxi everywhere and Tesla will be rolling in money.
There's some logic there. A lot of the world doesn't own a car, and most cars sit idle 95% of the time. So a really good robotaxi fleet with some smart dispatching software could theoretically be way more efficient.
I can see this being plausible but probably not in a single decade. There are a lot of people who for whatever reason like to drive/own their own car and probably most folks older than Millennial age will have to have their keyfobs pried from their cold dead hands. .
-W
if FSD does come to pass, it will be very interesting to watch what happens with the robotaxi idea. My M3 latest self parking was a huge fail! i think they have a way to go as yet. :)
I'm very boomer adjacent in age. I'd be delighted not to need a car at all, have one come by appt and not have to deal with a driver. It would be a huge cost savings overall - and while some do love to drive, many are either stressed by it or just don't enjoy it. I'm in between, when traffic is nice with the radio on and the heated seats going along....it's nice! A traffic jam when you are in a hurry with assholes driving badly all around with their road rage bubbling up, not so nice!
My issue with relying permanently on robotaxis would be cleanliness of the interior - aka other peoples kooties. And if they smoked or had heavy perfume or left garbage, I'd be pretty irritated. Stale smoke off their clothes even if they didn't smoke in the car or perfume would give me headaches that lasted long past the ride itself - so a lot to work out ater FSD is a done deal.
Still - seems tech and AI are heading to a critical point of dramatic societal change. It is exciting and scary, and I don't particularly like musk in one of the key roles here....Still hoping tesla cans him soon. or for god's sake shut him the f* up. He is an ugly personality and likes to wave it around.
Months ago, I predicted that Tesla will eventually transition from tech wonderstock to just another carmaker. I said their margins were going to shrink due to lots of electric competition arriving in 2023. In the past few months we've seen massive five-figure price cuts that will definitely affect margins. I said they'd have to start advertising, and Musk just this week said (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/musk-tells-tesla-shareholders-hes-not-stepping-down-as-ceo-considering-advertising) they'll have to start doing exactly that. It's mid-2023 and we still can't buy a Cybertruck three and a half years after its announcement. Meanwhile, Ford has been selling its e-truck for a year now.
There was a case being made 6, 12, and 24 months ago that Tesla had so many entrenched advantages and such a unique product that competitors couldn't possibly catch up. People were multiplying Tesla's projected car sale volume growth of the past against margins from 2021. Back then, Tesla could charge a premium while not advertising and while running operations at 100% to meet seemingly insatiable demand. That view is not aging well and I saw it coming.
TSLA 6-mo return: -7.14%
TSLA 12-mo return: -28.01%
TSLA 24-mo return: -11.72%
HMC 6-mo return: +18.52%
HMC 12-mo return: +13.23%
HMC 24-mo return: -6.55%
TM 6-mo return: -0.13%
TM 12-mo return: -10.75%
TM 24-mo return: -8.9%
Might be time to update your numbers. Stock up $80/share since you posted the above.
Congrats to the longs!
Elon has said "next year" for each of the last ten years.
At some point, you've got to stop believing the boy who cries wolf.
Elon has said "next year" for each of the last ten years.
At some point, you've got to stop believing the boy who cries wolf.
Tesla has certainly missed a lot of Musk predicted timelines, but the earliest Musk quote I could find was one from 2016 saying Tesla's would be able to drive better than humans in 2-3 years (so 2019). But I certainly could have missed something. Where are you seeing he was promising full self driving next year back in 2014?
Such is the risk of investing based on social media posts instead of fundamentals. Expect to see more of this.Elon has said "next year" for each of the last ten years.
At some point, you've got to stop believing the boy who cries wolf.
Tesla has certainly missed a lot of Musk predicted timelines, but the earliest Musk quote I could find was one from 2016 saying Tesla's would be able to drive better than humans in 2-3 years (so 2019). But I certainly could have missed something. Where are you seeing he was promising full self driving next year back in 2014?
There was a youtube video of Musk promising full self driving in 2014, but it appears to have been taken down.
Incidentally, Musk has argued in court that early video of him promising self driving is deepfaked - https://jalopnik.com/elon-musks-statements-on-teslas-self-driving-capabiliti-1850386071 (https://jalopnik.com/elon-musks-statements-on-teslas-self-driving-capabiliti-1850386071)
Elon has said "next year" for each of the last ten years.
At some point, you've got to stop believing the boy who cries wolf.
Tesla has certainly missed a lot of Musk predicted timelines, but the earliest Musk quote I could find was one from 2016 saying Tesla's would be able to drive better than humans in 2-3 years (so 2019). But I certainly could have missed something. Where are you seeing he was promising full self driving next year back in 2014?
I think the next phase of strong growth for Tesla hinges on their next gen car. Seems like this could easily be a couple years until production ramps but if they are able to produce a profitable model for $25-$30k(before incentives) while they continue to make massive progress on charging infrastructure, it seems as though they should sell every car they can make and will be production constrained for many years.
Elon has said "next year" for each of the last ten years.
At some point, you've got to stop believing the boy who cries wolf.
Tesla has certainly missed a lot of Musk predicted timelines, but the earliest Musk quote I could find was one from 2016 saying Tesla's would be able to drive better than humans in 2-3 years (so 2019). But I certainly could have missed something. Where are you seeing he was promising full self driving next year back in 2014?
I'm not sure what part of my quoted post you are referring to, but I can not piece together why you are quoting what I said to lead in to your post.For context, $80B/year would be a bit more than 2x the combined worldwide revenues of Uber + Lyft.
One can certainly argue it should be higher or lower than that. But $80B/year (and presumably much higher profit margins than current ride share companies that have to pay drivers) is a respectable -- more than respectable, huge -- number by the standards of companies that operate in the same space currently.
I think that like with many Tesla businesses, the idea of $80b being too low rests on the idea that Robotaxis will replace Lyft/Uber/YellowCab and simultaneously create a new market by being cheaper/easier than owning your own car (or purchasing a car to begin with), so everyone will just take a Robotaxi everywhere and Tesla will be rolling in money.
There's some logic there. A lot of the world doesn't own a car, and most cars sit idle 95% of the time. So a really good robotaxi fleet with some smart dispatching software could theoretically be way more efficient.
I can see this being plausible but probably not in a single decade. There are a lot of people who for whatever reason like to drive/own their own car and probably most folks older than Millennial age will have to have their keyfobs pried from their cold dead hands. .
-W
if FSD does come to pass, it will be very interesting to watch what happens with the robotaxi idea. My M3 latest self parking was a huge fail! i think they have a way to go as yet. :)
I'm very boomer adjacent in age. I'd be delighted not to need a car at all, have one come by appt and not have to deal with a driver. It would be a huge cost savings overall - and while some do love to drive, many are either stressed by it or just don't enjoy it. I'm in between, when traffic is nice with the radio on and the heated seats going along....it's nice! A traffic jam when you are in a hurry with assholes driving badly all around with their road rage bubbling up, not so nice!
My issue with relying permanently on robotaxis would be cleanliness of the interior - aka other peoples kooties. And if they smoked or had heavy perfume or left garbage, I'd be pretty irritated. Stale smoke off their clothes even if they didn't smoke in the car or perfume would give me headaches that lasted long past the ride itself - so a lot to work out ater FSD is a done deal.
Still - seems tech and AI are heading to a critical point of dramatic societal change. It is exciting and scary, and I don't particularly like musk in one of the key roles here....Still hoping tesla cans him soon. or for god's sake shut him the f* up. He is an ugly personality and likes to wave it around.
Why do you think we're close? Seems like it's just been disaster after disaster lately.
Uber, Google, and others have been working on autonomous driving for over a decade, promising it's close.
Elon has said "next year" for each of the last ten years.
At some point, you've got to stop believing the boy who cries wolf.
Elon has said "next year" for each of the last ten years.
At some point, you've got to stop believing the boy who cries wolf.
Tesla has certainly missed a lot of Musk predicted timelines, but the earliest Musk quote I could find was one from 2016 saying Tesla's would be able to drive better than humans in 2-3 years (so 2019). But I certainly could have missed something. Where are you seeing he was promising full self driving next year back in 2014?
Why do you think we're "close?"
https://www.theverge.com/2014/10/2/6894875/elon-musk-says-next-years-tesla-cars-will-be-able-to-self-drive-90-percent-of-the-time
Still - seems tech and AI are heading to a critical point of dramatic societal change. It is exciting and scary, and I don't particularly like musk in one of the key roles here....Still hoping tesla cans him soon. or for god's sake shut him the f* up. He is an ugly personality and likes to wave it around.Telsa could split into two: Tesla Motors, and Musk's Automation Systems and Solutions.
My son wanted to know how you could have a character in D&D with high intelligence and low wisdom, “wouldn’t you just learn from your mistakes?”
My response was, “Elon Musk”.
-W
Shares are roughly -25% since Musk's acquisition of Twitter in late October 2022, and down almost 40% from the summer of 2022 when Musk might have pledged his shares as collateral. I wonder at what point could these loans get called? Could also explain Musk's behavior trying to obtain more voting power over Tesla.
True. My first thought was what leverage would EM have over even a moderately independent board? He's not an AI engineer genius; he's a venture capitalist. And Tesla is well past the VC stage. What would stop them from saying "Thanks but no thanks, and if you don't like it, sell out." But Musk can't sell out and use his proceeds to start an AI bandwagon company, because his shares are busy working as loan collateral for his vanity project of turning Twitter into 4-Chan, 8-Chan, Telegram, Rumble, or Truth Social.Shares are roughly -25% since Musk's acquisition of Twitter in late October 2022, and down almost 40% from the summer of 2022 when Musk might have pledged his shares as collateral. I wonder at what point could these loans get called? Could also explain Musk's behavior trying to obtain more voting power over Tesla.
I'm not sure what the terms on those loans are, or if/how much he would be inconvienced if had to pay it off all at once given his net worth.
but I think you give musk too much credit on this! he is just a megalomaniac and being one of the 10 richest in the world isn't enough for him.....he is trying to make sure he is the richest and stays richest and no one can even catch up....that is his goal.
Given his crazy posting history on twitter - I worry that just being the riches isn't going to be enough for him, that he is going to seek out other forms of power as well.
I do think this was a kick to tesla investors as I don't see how this is accomplished without diluting the value of existing shares. I hope the board will take some control in this, but I fear they are just a bunch of toadies...
True. My first thought was what leverage would EM have over even a moderately independent board? He's not an AI engineer genius; he's a venture capitalist. And Tesla is well past the VC stage. What would stop them from saying "Thanks but no thanks, and if you don't like it, sell out." But Musk can't sell out and use his proceeds to start an AI bandwagon company, because his shares are busy working as loan collateral for his vanity project of turning Twitter into 4-Chan, 8-Chan, Telegram, Rumble, or Truth Social.Shares are roughly -25% since Musk's acquisition of Twitter in late October 2022, and down almost 40% from the summer of 2022 when Musk might have pledged his shares as collateral. I wonder at what point could these loans get called? Could also explain Musk's behavior trying to obtain more voting power over Tesla.
I'm not sure what the terms on those loans are, or if/how much he would be inconvienced if had to pay it off all at once given his net worth.
but I think you give musk too much credit on this! he is just a megalomaniac and being one of the 10 richest in the world isn't enough for him.....he is trying to make sure he is the richest and stays richest and no one can even catch up....that is his goal.
Given his crazy posting history on twitter - I worry that just being the riches isn't going to be enough for him, that he is going to seek out other forms of power as well.
I do think this was a kick to tesla investors as I don't see how this is accomplished without diluting the value of existing shares. I hope the board will take some control in this, but I fear they are just a bunch of toadies...
I'd hope TSLA shareholders would revolt against any attempt to sell them down the river this way, but regarding toadies... one never knows.
Right? I think the fear is that Musk will decrease involvement in Tesla. Could be good for TSLA long-term, but Musk's cult following, which includes many retail investors, would see it as a negative.
Therefore, Elon getting another 12% of TSLA as part of his next comp package, worth a hell of a lot more now than in 2018, is very unlikely. And everyone knows Elon is the kind of guy that would cut off his nose to spite his face.
Musk's $56B comp package voided by Delaware court. Is this good, bad, neutral for TSLA? Shares down after hours, interested to see what happens tomorrow.I hear from a lot of investors who swear to never again buy Chinese stocks because no matter how well the company does, common shareholders will never receive the value. The whole system is corrupt, they say, and a common share in a Chinese company is NOT the same thing as a common share in a US company because it exists in a communist context where powerful people extort the profits.
This seems like it could greatly complicate Elon's push for more control of Tesla. Does the board give in to his demands and risk another lawsuit? Does Elon walk and/or effectively kill AI/robotics at Tesla? He risks becoming a paper tiger if he doesn't follow through... that's the risk of going public with an ultimatum. Very messy, but extremely fascinating.
Musk's $56B comp package voided by Delaware court. Is this good, bad, neutral for TSLA? Shares down after hours, interested to see what happens tomorrow.I hear from a lot of investors who swear to never again buy Chinese stocks because no matter how well the company does, common shareholders will never receive the value. The whole system is corrupt, they say, and a common share in a Chinese company is NOT the same thing as a common share in a US company because it exists in a communist context where powerful people extort the profits.
This seems like it could greatly complicate Elon's push for more control of Tesla. Does the board give in to his demands and risk another lawsuit? Does Elon walk and/or effectively kill AI/robotics at Tesla? He risks becoming a paper tiger if he doesn't follow through... that's the risk of going public with an ultimatum. Very messy, but extremely fascinating.
And then they own TSLA.
Nice to see the usual suspects are still trolling this thread when the Tesla stock price takes a dip. If they keep predicting Tesla’s impending doom I’m sure they’ll be right one of these years.
Tesla insiders have pulled out more money by selling stock given as compensation than Tesla has made in profits, so far.Musk's $56B comp package voided by Delaware court. Is this good, bad, neutral for TSLA? Shares down after hours, interested to see what happens tomorrow.I hear from a lot of investors who swear to never again buy Chinese stocks because no matter how well the company does, common shareholders will never receive the value. The whole system is corrupt, they say, and a common share in a Chinese company is NOT the same thing as a common share in a US company because it exists in a communist context where powerful people extort the profits.
This seems like it could greatly complicate Elon's push for more control of Tesla. Does the board give in to his demands and risk another lawsuit? Does Elon walk and/or effectively kill AI/robotics at Tesla? He risks becoming a paper tiger if he doesn't follow through... that's the risk of going public with an ultimatum. Very messy, but extremely fascinating.
And then they own TSLA.
I'm not seeing how china owns tesla?
Tesla insiders have pulled out more money by selling stock given as compensation than Tesla has made in profits, so far.Musk's $56B comp package voided by Delaware court. Is this good, bad, neutral for TSLA? Shares down after hours, interested to see what happens tomorrow.I hear from a lot of investors who swear to never again buy Chinese stocks because no matter how well the company does, common shareholders will never receive the value. The whole system is corrupt, they say, and a common share in a Chinese company is NOT the same thing as a common share in a US company because it exists in a communist context where powerful people extort the profits.
This seems like it could greatly complicate Elon's push for more control of Tesla. Does the board give in to his demands and risk another lawsuit? Does Elon walk and/or effectively kill AI/robotics at Tesla? He risks becoming a paper tiger if he doesn't follow through... that's the risk of going public with an ultimatum. Very messy, but extremely fascinating.
And then they own TSLA.
I'm not seeing how china owns tesla?
Now, Musk, who has sold $40bn or so himself (last time I looked), wants the board to grant him enough stock to about double his ownership.
Or something like that.
It doesn't. The point is that an investor who discounts or avoids Chinese companies for the reasons outlined above should also discount or avoid Tesla for the reasons outlined above. Tesla is no more configured to return profits to common shareholders than companies in the PRC. This episode demonstrates severe problems with corporate governance that are bound to bite small investors in the long run.Tesla insiders have pulled out more money by selling stock given as compensation than Tesla has made in profits, so far.Musk's $56B comp package voided by Delaware court. Is this good, bad, neutral for TSLA? Shares down after hours, interested to see what happens tomorrow.I hear from a lot of investors who swear to never again buy Chinese stocks because no matter how well the company does, common shareholders will never receive the value. The whole system is corrupt, they say, and a common share in a Chinese company is NOT the same thing as a common share in a US company because it exists in a communist context where powerful people extort the profits.
This seems like it could greatly complicate Elon's push for more control of Tesla. Does the board give in to his demands and risk another lawsuit? Does Elon walk and/or effectively kill AI/robotics at Tesla? He risks becoming a paper tiger if he doesn't follow through... that's the risk of going public with an ultimatum. Very messy, but extremely fascinating.
And then they own TSLA.
I'm not seeing how china owns tesla?
Now, Musk, who has sold $40bn or so himself (last time I looked), wants the board to grant him enough stock to about double his ownership.
Or something like that.
but where does china come into it?
Nice to see the usual suspects are still trolling this thread when the Tesla stock price takes a dip. If they keep predicting Tesla’s impending doom I’m sure they’ll be right one of these years.
How much is your Tesla robotaxi making for you?
Tesla is a maturing company. Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative. Demand is on the rise, margins are increasing, new models are on the horizon, two new factories will start production in the next 1-3 months. The energy storage and grid services side of the business is just getting started. FSD is more speculative, but could be massively profitable if solved fully. I personally won’t be shedding any of my shares in the next 2-3 years at least.
My Tesla robotaxi has the same value as your Tesla analysis..
I will buy the competition is coming narrative as soon as someone points to a realistic pathway for another EV manufacturer to produce a million EVs in 2023 or 2 million in 2024.(bolded)
BYD delivered 114k BEVs in November (~147% growth from 11/21) and are on target to deliver over a million in 2023 (799k ytd through 11/30/22).
It doesn't. The point is that an investor who discounts or avoids Chinese companies for the reasons outlined above should also discount or avoid Tesla for the reasons outlined above. Tesla is no more configured to return profits to common shareholders than companies in the PRC. This episode demonstrates severe problems with corporate governance that are bound to bite small investors in the long run.Tesla insiders have pulled out more money by selling stock given as compensation than Tesla has made in profits, so far.Musk's $56B comp package voided by Delaware court. Is this good, bad, neutral for TSLA? Shares down after hours, interested to see what happens tomorrow.I hear from a lot of investors who swear to never again buy Chinese stocks because no matter how well the company does, common shareholders will never receive the value. The whole system is corrupt, they say, and a common share in a Chinese company is NOT the same thing as a common share in a US company because it exists in a communist context where powerful people extort the profits.
This seems like it could greatly complicate Elon's push for more control of Tesla. Does the board give in to his demands and risk another lawsuit? Does Elon walk and/or effectively kill AI/robotics at Tesla? He risks becoming a paper tiger if he doesn't follow through... that's the risk of going public with an ultimatum. Very messy, but extremely fascinating.
And then they own TSLA.
I'm not seeing how china owns tesla?
Now, Musk, who has sold $40bn or so himself (last time I looked), wants the board to grant him enough stock to about double his ownership.
Or something like that.
but where does china come into it?
There's a fair point to be made about cherry picking time periods to make a case for or against TSLA. Clearly, those that invested pre-2021ish have done quite well, in particular anyone that sold before about 2022.
However, one of the fascinating things about long threads like this is the ability to go back and see analysis/predictions on the record. IMO, these are fair game.
I don't think I was too far off in my first post (I think?) to this thread (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg3090145/#msg3090145), with concerns around TSLA's high PE ratio in an increasingly competitive EV market. In subsequent posts I quoted forecasts from Ford that proved wildly optimistic (like 200k Mach E units in 2023, but really more like 40k). I'm sure I was wrong in other areas as well... e.g. EV growth slowed more than many expected, including me.
@ColoradoTribe you've been very active on this thread making your case for TSLA based on your investing thesis. I'd like to draw attention to one of your posts from Oct 28, 2021 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg2922423/#msg2922423) (emphasis added):Tesla is a maturing company. Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative. Demand is on the rise, margins are increasing, new models are on the horizon, two new factories will start production in the next 1-3 months. The energy storage and grid services side of the business is just getting started. FSD is more speculative, but could be massively profitable if solved fully. I personally won’t be shedding any of my shares in the next 2-3 years at least.
As of today, TSLA is down 49% from the date of your post. For comparison, VTI in this same window is positive 2.6%. In fact TSLA has trailed VTI during this period with the exception of a couple weeks. Do you still stand by your analysis?
Still waiting to see what CAGR will be for the EV industry and TSLA in 2026 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg3090937/#msg3090937).
I am too lazy to go find it, but I think one of my predictions from a few years back on this thread was that if Tesla's trajectory was to end up as a small/medium car company, as seemed (to me) likely, that was not a scenario that justified the stock price.
Tesla sales are still growing but is anyone really going to predict more 50%/year growth? Going from 100k to 200k units is hard. Going from 1.8 million in 2023 to even 2.5 million in 2024 is going to be super hard. Forget about 3+ million unless there's a model 2 waiting in the wings and production can get going gangbusters in no time.
That said, my predictions are usually worthless, and Robotaxi could still happen. Also I actually like Tesla (my son still has his share!) and I'd love to see them prove me wrong.
-W
My Tesla robotaxi has the same value as your Tesla analysis..
Hey, I correctly predicted the Q4 2022 miss.
I admit, the following didn't age well. Oh, wait. BYD did in fact produce 1.6M BEVs in 2023. I was right there too.I will buy the competition is coming narrative as soon as someone points to a realistic pathway for another EV manufacturer to produce a million EVs in 2023 or 2 million in 2024.(bolded)
BYD delivered 114k BEVs in November (~147% growth from 11/21) and are on target to deliver over a million in 2023 (799k ytd through 11/30/22).
For the record, as long as we're discussing poor predictions, are you predicting that robotaxi will happen in 2024? If you predict it every year, you'll probably be right eventually.
There's a fair point to be made about cherry picking time periods to make a case for or against TSLA. Clearly, those that invested pre-2021ish have done quite well, in particular anyone that sold before about 2022.
However, one of the fascinating things about long threads like this is the ability to go back and see analysis/predictions on the record. IMO, these are fair game.
I don't think I was too far off in my first post (I think?) to this thread (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg3090145/#msg3090145), with concerns around TSLA's high PE ratio in an increasingly competitive EV market. In subsequent posts I quoted forecasts from Ford that proved wildly optimistic (like 200k Mach E units in 2023, but really more like 40k). I'm sure I was wrong in other areas as well... e.g. EV growth slowed more than many expected, including me.
@ColoradoTribe you've been very active on this thread making your case for TSLA based on your investing thesis. I'd like to draw attention to one of your posts from Oct 28, 2021 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg2922423/#msg2922423) (emphasis added):Tesla is a maturing company. Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative. Demand is on the rise, margins are increasing, new models are on the horizon, two new factories will start production in the next 1-3 months. The energy storage and grid services side of the business is just getting started. FSD is more speculative, but could be massively profitable if solved fully. I personally won’t be shedding any of my shares in the next 2-3 years at least.
As of today, TSLA is down 49% from the date of your post. For comparison, VTI in this same window is positive 2.6%. In fact TSLA has trailed VTI during this period with the exception of a couple weeks. Do you still stand by your analysis?
Still waiting to see what CAGR will be for the EV industry and TSLA in 2026 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg3090937/#msg3090937).
The stock price performance short term has no bearing or connection to the company's performance. Do you think Tesla wasn’t growing as a company when it traded sideways or worse from 2013 to 2019? Of course not! I invested in 2013 and had to gut out 6 years of lateral movement during a bull market. I was able to do that because I knew Tesla was executing on its plans all the while and my investment thesis was intact despite Wall Street’s ignorance.
Same is the case now. Look at my post above that you quoted. EV demand is on the rise to this day (check the YOY global sales of EVs) and don’t fall for the failing OEM's (Ford, GM, VW) narrative that they can’t sell their EVs because of "demand issues". They can’t sell their EVs because they can’t compete with Tesla (and Chinese EVs) on price and performance. The energy storage and grid services business is taking off, growing over 50% YOY while increasing margins. Two new megapack factories are under construction in China and NV. The Tesla semi factory is under construction in NV. New models have come to market (CyberTruck, refreshed M3) or are under development (Gen 3 platform) for 2025. Two new factories (Austin and Berlin) are cranking out vehicles. Model Y was the best selling car of any kind (BEV, ICE, etc.) in the world in 2023.
So, Tesla did or is doing everything I said they would be doing in my post from Oct 2019. I care about execution and trends, not short term noise and stock volatility. I waited six years for the first big jump and can wait another six if necessary for the next leg up when reality once again smacks WS in the face.
Though it should be noted that BYD’s margin on their 2023 vehicles was close to zero.
Tesla gross margin fell to 17.6% from 17.9% in Q3 and 23.8% in Q4 2022.
[...]
BYD's Q3 gross margin was 22.1%, the highest since Q3 2020, with BYD Auto's gross margin surging to 25.7%. But Q4 preliminary figures suggest that margins took a big hit.
There's a fair point to be made about cherry picking time periods to make a case for or against TSLA. Clearly, those that invested pre-2021ish have done quite well, in particular anyone that sold before about 2022.
However, one of the fascinating things about long threads like this is the ability to go back and see analysis/predictions on the record. IMO, these are fair game.
I don't think I was too far off in my first post (I think?) to this thread (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg3090145/#msg3090145), with concerns around TSLA's high PE ratio in an increasingly competitive EV market. In subsequent posts I quoted forecasts from Ford that proved wildly optimistic (like 200k Mach E units in 2023, but really more like 40k). I'm sure I was wrong in other areas as well... e.g. EV growth slowed more than many expected, including me.
@ColoradoTribe you've been very active on this thread making your case for TSLA based on your investing thesis. I'd like to draw attention to one of your posts from Oct 28, 2021 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg2922423/#msg2922423) (emphasis added):Tesla is a maturing company. Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative. Demand is on the rise, margins are increasing, new models are on the horizon, two new factories will start production in the next 1-3 months. The energy storage and grid services side of the business is just getting started. FSD is more speculative, but could be massively profitable if solved fully. I personally won’t be shedding any of my shares in the next 2-3 years at least.
As of today, TSLA is down 49% from the date of your post. For comparison, VTI in this same window is positive 2.6%. In fact TSLA has trailed VTI during this period with the exception of a couple weeks. Do you still stand by your analysis?
Still waiting to see what CAGR will be for the EV industry and TSLA in 2026 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg3090937/#msg3090937).
The stock price performance short term has no bearing or connection to the company's performance. Do you think Tesla wasn’t growing as a company when it traded sideways or worse from 2013 to 2019? Of course not! I invested in 2013 and had to gut out 6 years of lateral movement during a bull market. I was able to do that because I knew Tesla was executing on its plans all the while and my investment thesis was intact despite Wall Street’s ignorance.
Same is the case now. Look at my post above that you quoted. EV demand is on the rise to this day (check the YOY global sales of EVs) and don’t fall for the failing OEM's (Ford, GM, VW) narrative that they can’t sell their EVs because of "demand issues". They can’t sell their EVs because they can’t compete with Tesla (and Chinese EVs) on price and performance. The energy storage and grid services business is taking off, growing over 50% YOY while increasing margins. Two new megapack factories are under construction in China and NV. The Tesla semi factory is under construction in NV. New models have come to market (CyberTruck, refreshed M3) or are under development (Gen 3 platform) for 2025. Two new factories (Austin and Berlin) are cranking out vehicles. Model Y was the best selling car of any kind (BEV, ICE, etc.) in the world in 2023.
So, Tesla did or is doing everything I said they would be doing in my post from Oct 2019. I care about execution and trends, not short term noise and stock volatility. I waited six years for the first big jump and can wait another six if necessary for the next leg up when reality once again smacks WS in the face.
You didn't answer my question. Do you stand by your statement from Oct 2021 that "Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative"?
I didn't ask about 2013-2019 .. TSLA was indeed a good investment in that time period, which I have already acknowledged here.
You doubled down on your investing thesis rather than answer my direct question. Are we then to understand that you stand by your claim that TSLA was not a risky investment in 2021? If so, then those reading this thread should understand that you have a rather extreme tolerance for risk, perhaps risk seeking even, and so your thesis and analysis should be calibrated accordingly.
If, on the other hand, you do not stand by your claim, a simple "I was wrong" is sufficient. My intention isn't to gloat or rub it in your face. We all make predictions about an unknowable future, and we all get it wrong. What I'm looking for is what we as a community can learn from this, where did your analysis go wrong?
There's a fair point to be made about cherry picking time periods to make a case for or against TSLA. Clearly, those that invested pre-2021ish have done quite well, in particular anyone that sold before about 2022.
However, one of the fascinating things about long threads like this is the ability to go back and see analysis/predictions on the record. IMO, these are fair game.
I don't think I was too far off in my first post (I think?) to this thread (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg3090145/#msg3090145), with concerns around TSLA's high PE ratio in an increasingly competitive EV market. In subsequent posts I quoted forecasts from Ford that proved wildly optimistic (like 200k Mach E units in 2023, but really more like 40k). I'm sure I was wrong in other areas as well... e.g. EV growth slowed more than many expected, including me.
@ColoradoTribe you've been very active on this thread making your case for TSLA based on your investing thesis. I'd like to draw attention to one of your posts from Oct 28, 2021 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg2922423/#msg2922423) (emphasis added):Tesla is a maturing company. Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative. Demand is on the rise, margins are increasing, new models are on the horizon, two new factories will start production in the next 1-3 months. The energy storage and grid services side of the business is just getting started. FSD is more speculative, but could be massively profitable if solved fully. I personally won’t be shedding any of my shares in the next 2-3 years at least.
As of today, TSLA is down 49% from the date of your post. For comparison, VTI in this same window is positive 2.6%. In fact TSLA has trailed VTI during this period with the exception of a couple weeks. Do you still stand by your analysis?
Still waiting to see what CAGR will be for the EV industry and TSLA in 2026 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg3090937/#msg3090937).
The stock price performance short term has no bearing or connection to the company's performance. Do you think Tesla wasn’t growing as a company when it traded sideways or worse from 2013 to 2019? Of course not! I invested in 2013 and had to gut out 6 years of lateral movement during a bull market. I was able to do that because I knew Tesla was executing on its plans all the while and my investment thesis was intact despite Wall Street’s ignorance.
Same is the case now. Look at my post above that you quoted. EV demand is on the rise to this day (check the YOY global sales of EVs) and don’t fall for the failing OEM's (Ford, GM, VW) narrative that they can’t sell their EVs because of "demand issues". They can’t sell their EVs because they can’t compete with Tesla (and Chinese EVs) on price and performance. The energy storage and grid services business is taking off, growing over 50% YOY while increasing margins. Two new megapack factories are under construction in China and NV. The Tesla semi factory is under construction in NV. New models have come to market (CyberTruck, refreshed M3) or are under development (Gen 3 platform) for 2025. Two new factories (Austin and Berlin) are cranking out vehicles. Model Y was the best selling car of any kind (BEV, ICE, etc.) in the world in 2023.
So, Tesla did or is doing everything I said they would be doing in my post from Oct 2019. I care about execution and trends, not short term noise and stock volatility. I waited six years for the first big jump and can wait another six if necessary for the next leg up when reality once again smacks WS in the face.
You didn't answer my question. Do you stand by your statement from Oct 2021 that "Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative"?
I didn't ask about 2013-2019 .. TSLA was indeed a good investment in that time period, which I have already acknowledged here.
You doubled down on your investing thesis rather than answer my direct question. Are we then to understand that you stand by your claim that TSLA was not a risky investment in 2021? If so, then those reading this thread should understand that you have a rather extreme tolerance for risk, perhaps risk seeking even, and so your thesis and analysis should be calibrated accordingly.
If, on the other hand, you do not stand by your claim, a simple "I was wrong" is sufficient. My intention isn't to gloat or rub it in your face. We all make predictions about an unknowable future, and we all get it wrong. What I'm looking for is what we as a community can learn from this, where did your analysis go wrong?
Good grief grand inquisitor, I thought it was pretty obvious from my response that I stand by my statement. If everything I predicted would happen has happened when I made that claim why wouldn’t I stand by that statement? But here, if this helps; I, ColoradoTribe, hereby stand by my October 2021 statement and reaffirm that Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative.
As for the rest of your post, I assume you’re joking? As I spelled out above, my predictions about the company performance were spot on. I never made a prediction on stock price, because the stock price can be disconnected from reality for long periods of time, see 2013 - 2019 (and I don’t care if you asked about that time period or not, its relevant to my long-term Tesla investment and my 7-figure gains). It also proves the stock price can lag the company’s performance significantly and for long periods. Just like the period we’re in right now, where Tesla continues to execute at a high level (as I laid out in my previous post) but the market is slow to catch up to reality.
What the community can learn from this is don’t listen to poorly informed internet geniuses with axes to grind and no skin in the game. If they were considering an investment in Tesla and listened to you or your ilk when this thread started they missed out on 9X gains based on today’s close or 19X gains had they cashed out at the ATH a mere 3.5 years after this thread started.
The fact that you only have the bravado to come on this thread and spout off when the short term stock price is down tells me all I need to know. I on the other hand have stuck to my simple investment thesis since 2013 regardless of short-term noice, stock volatility, and meaningless distractions. It probably seems risky to those following the news headlines and not diving deep into the market and Tesla’s underlying performance, engineering and execution. I don’t know why others feel the need to attribute others’ success to either luck or extreme risk taking. The risk with Tesla was no more than with any other tech growth stock, I would argue far less.
Thesis:
1) Are EVs, renewable energy and energy storage the future?
2) Is Tesla the leader in EVs and energy storage?
I've made a 3,500% return on TSLA. I feel like that's a sign I should cash in, but its only 3.8% of my portfolio. What do you all think? I guess at this point I'm never going to lose money, so maybe just hold it until I need money (or forever and give it to my kid?).
I raise this question only because I'm not sure where something goes from an investment to speculation...I honestly don't think the company is worth 1 Trillion, but what do I know?
Tesla is a maturing company. Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative. Demand is on the rise, margins are increasing, new models are on the horizon, two new factories will start production in the next 1-3 months. The energy storage and grid services side of the business is just getting started. FSD is more speculative, but could be massively profitable if solved fully. I personally won’t be shedding any of my shares in the next 2-3 years at least.
There's a fair point to be made about cherry picking time periods to make a case for or against TSLA. Clearly, those that invested pre-2021ish have done quite well, in particular anyone that sold before about 2022.
However, one of the fascinating things about long threads like this is the ability to go back and see analysis/predictions on the record. IMO, these are fair game.
I don't think I was too far off in my first post (I think?) to this thread (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg3090145/#msg3090145), with concerns around TSLA's high PE ratio in an increasingly competitive EV market. In subsequent posts I quoted forecasts from Ford that proved wildly optimistic (like 200k Mach E units in 2023, but really more like 40k). I'm sure I was wrong in other areas as well... e.g. EV growth slowed more than many expected, including me.
@ColoradoTribe you've been very active on this thread making your case for TSLA based on your investing thesis. I'd like to draw attention to one of your posts from Oct 28, 2021 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg2922423/#msg2922423) (emphasis added):Tesla is a maturing company. Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative. Demand is on the rise, margins are increasing, new models are on the horizon, two new factories will start production in the next 1-3 months. The energy storage and grid services side of the business is just getting started. FSD is more speculative, but could be massively profitable if solved fully. I personally won’t be shedding any of my shares in the next 2-3 years at least.
As of today, TSLA is down 49% from the date of your post. For comparison, VTI in this same window is positive 2.6%. In fact TSLA has trailed VTI during this period with the exception of a couple weeks. Do you still stand by your analysis?
Still waiting to see what CAGR will be for the EV industry and TSLA in 2026 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg3090937/#msg3090937).
The stock price performance short term has no bearing or connection to the company's performance. Do you think Tesla wasn’t growing as a company when it traded sideways or worse from 2013 to 2019? Of course not! I invested in 2013 and had to gut out 6 years of lateral movement during a bull market. I was able to do that because I knew Tesla was executing on its plans all the while and my investment thesis was intact despite Wall Street’s ignorance.
Same is the case now. Look at my post above that you quoted. EV demand is on the rise to this day (check the YOY global sales of EVs) and don’t fall for the failing OEM's (Ford, GM, VW) narrative that they can’t sell their EVs because of "demand issues". They can’t sell their EVs because they can’t compete with Tesla (and Chinese EVs) on price and performance. The energy storage and grid services business is taking off, growing over 50% YOY while increasing margins. Two new megapack factories are under construction in China and NV. The Tesla semi factory is under construction in NV. New models have come to market (CyberTruck, refreshed M3) or are under development (Gen 3 platform) for 2025. Two new factories (Austin and Berlin) are cranking out vehicles. Model Y was the best selling car of any kind (BEV, ICE, etc.) in the world in 2023.
So, Tesla did or is doing everything I said they would be doing in my post from Oct 2019. I care about execution and trends, not short term noise and stock volatility. I waited six years for the first big jump and can wait another six if necessary for the next leg up when reality once again smacks WS in the face.
You didn't answer my question. Do you stand by your statement from Oct 2021 that "Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative"?
I didn't ask about 2013-2019 .. TSLA was indeed a good investment in that time period, which I have already acknowledged here.
You doubled down on your investing thesis rather than answer my direct question. Are we then to understand that you stand by your claim that TSLA was not a risky investment in 2021? If so, then those reading this thread should understand that you have a rather extreme tolerance for risk, perhaps risk seeking even, and so your thesis and analysis should be calibrated accordingly.
If, on the other hand, you do not stand by your claim, a simple "I was wrong" is sufficient. My intention isn't to gloat or rub it in your face. We all make predictions about an unknowable future, and we all get it wrong. What I'm looking for is what we as a community can learn from this, where did your analysis go wrong?
Good grief grand inquisitor, I thought it was pretty obvious from my response that I stand by my statement. If everything I predicted would happen has happened when I made that claim why wouldn’t I stand by that statement? But here, if this helps; I, ColoradoTribe, hereby stand by my October 2021 statement and reaffirm that Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative.
As for the rest of your post, I assume you’re joking? As I spelled out above, my predictions about the company performance were spot on. I never made a prediction on stock price, because the stock price can be disconnected from reality for long periods of time, see 2013 - 2019 (and I don’t care if you asked about that time period or not, its relevant to my long-term Tesla investment and my 7-figure gains). It also proves the stock price can lag the company’s performance significantly and for long periods. Just like the period we’re in right now, where Tesla continues to execute at a high level (as I laid out in my previous post) but the market is slow to catch up to reality.
What the community can learn from this is don’t listen to poorly informed internet geniuses with axes to grind and no skin in the game. If they were considering an investment in Tesla and listened to you or your ilk when this thread started they missed out on 9X gains based on today’s close or 19X gains had they cashed out at the ATH a mere 3.5 years after this thread started.
The fact that you only have the bravado to come on this thread and spout off when the short term stock price is down tells me all I need to know. I on the other hand have stuck to my simple investment thesis since 2013 regardless of short-term noice, stock volatility, and meaningless distractions. It probably seems risky to those following the news headlines and not diving deep into the market and Tesla’s underlying performance, engineering and execution. I don’t know why others feel the need to attribute others’ success to either luck or extreme risk taking. The risk with Tesla was no more than with any other tech growth stock, I would argue far less.
Thesis:
1) Are EVs, renewable energy and energy storage the future?
2) Is Tesla the leader in EVs and energy storage?
There's a fair point to be made about cherry picking time periods to make a case for or against TSLA. Clearly, those that invested pre-2021ish have done quite well, in particular anyone that sold before about 2022.
However, one of the fascinating things about long threads like this is the ability to go back and see analysis/predictions on the record. IMO, these are fair game.
I don't think I was too far off in my first post (I think?) to this thread (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg3090145/#msg3090145), with concerns around TSLA's high PE ratio in an increasingly competitive EV market. In subsequent posts I quoted forecasts from Ford that proved wildly optimistic (like 200k Mach E units in 2023, but really more like 40k). I'm sure I was wrong in other areas as well... e.g. EV growth slowed more than many expected, including me.
@ColoradoTribe you've been very active on this thread making your case for TSLA based on your investing thesis. I'd like to draw attention to one of your posts from Oct 28, 2021 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg2922423/#msg2922423) (emphasis added):Tesla is a maturing company. Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative. Demand is on the rise, margins are increasing, new models are on the horizon, two new factories will start production in the next 1-3 months. The energy storage and grid services side of the business is just getting started. FSD is more speculative, but could be massively profitable if solved fully. I personally won’t be shedding any of my shares in the next 2-3 years at least.
As of today, TSLA is down 49% from the date of your post. For comparison, VTI in this same window is positive 2.6%. In fact TSLA has trailed VTI during this period with the exception of a couple weeks. Do you still stand by your analysis?
Still waiting to see what CAGR will be for the EV industry and TSLA in 2026 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg3090937/#msg3090937).
The stock price performance short term has no bearing or connection to the company's performance. Do you think Tesla wasn’t growing as a company when it traded sideways or worse from 2013 to 2019? Of course not! I invested in 2013 and had to gut out 6 years of lateral movement during a bull market. I was able to do that because I knew Tesla was executing on its plans all the while and my investment thesis was intact despite Wall Street’s ignorance.
Same is the case now. Look at my post above that you quoted. EV demand is on the rise to this day (check the YOY global sales of EVs) and don’t fall for the failing OEM's (Ford, GM, VW) narrative that they can’t sell their EVs because of "demand issues". They can’t sell their EVs because they can’t compete with Tesla (and Chinese EVs) on price and performance. The energy storage and grid services business is taking off, growing over 50% YOY while increasing margins. Two new megapack factories are under construction in China and NV. The Tesla semi factory is under construction in NV. New models have come to market (CyberTruck, refreshed M3) or are under development (Gen 3 platform) for 2025. Two new factories (Austin and Berlin) are cranking out vehicles. Model Y was the best selling car of any kind (BEV, ICE, etc.) in the world in 2023.
So, Tesla did or is doing everything I said they would be doing in my post from Oct 2019. I care about execution and trends, not short term noise and stock volatility. I waited six years for the first big jump and can wait another six if necessary for the next leg up when reality once again smacks WS in the face.
You didn't answer my question. Do you stand by your statement from Oct 2021 that "Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative"?
I didn't ask about 2013-2019 .. TSLA was indeed a good investment in that time period, which I have already acknowledged here.
You doubled down on your investing thesis rather than answer my direct question. Are we then to understand that you stand by your claim that TSLA was not a risky investment in 2021? If so, then those reading this thread should understand that you have a rather extreme tolerance for risk, perhaps risk seeking even, and so your thesis and analysis should be calibrated accordingly.
If, on the other hand, you do not stand by your claim, a simple "I was wrong" is sufficient. My intention isn't to gloat or rub it in your face. We all make predictions about an unknowable future, and we all get it wrong. What I'm looking for is what we as a community can learn from this, where did your analysis go wrong?
Good grief grand inquisitor, I thought it was pretty obvious from my response that I stand by my statement. If everything I predicted would happen has happened when I made that claim why wouldn’t I stand by that statement? But here, if this helps; I, ColoradoTribe, hereby stand by my October 2021 statement and reaffirm that Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative.
As for the rest of your post, I assume you’re joking? As I spelled out above, my predictions about the company performance were spot on. I never made a prediction on stock price, because the stock price can be disconnected from reality for long periods of time, see 2013 - 2019 (and I don’t care if you asked about that time period or not, its relevant to my long-term Tesla investment and my 7-figure gains). It also proves the stock price can lag the company’s performance significantly and for long periods. Just like the period we’re in right now, where Tesla continues to execute at a high level (as I laid out in my previous post) but the market is slow to catch up to reality.
What the community can learn from this is don’t listen to poorly informed internet geniuses with axes to grind and no skin in the game. If they were considering an investment in Tesla and listened to you or your ilk when this thread started they missed out on 9X gains based on today’s close or 19X gains had they cashed out at the ATH a mere 3.5 years after this thread started.
The fact that you only have the bravado to come on this thread and spout off when the short term stock price is down tells me all I need to know. I on the other hand have stuck to my simple investment thesis since 2013 regardless of short-term noice, stock volatility, and meaningless distractions. It probably seems risky to those following the news headlines and not diving deep into the market and Tesla’s underlying performance, engineering and execution. I don’t know why others feel the need to attribute others’ success to either luck or extreme risk taking. The risk with Tesla was no more than with any other tech growth stock, I would argue far less.
Thesis:
1) Are EVs, renewable energy and energy storage the future?
2) Is Tesla the leader in EVs and energy storage?
This is a laughable thesis.
Both of the answers can be yes and Tesla still could not be a good investment.
-Declining margins
-Stale product lineup with nothing new on the way until 2026 at the earliest
-EPS declined YoY in 2023 and early 2024 ests have it in the ballpark of 2022
-CEO who wants out unless he gets more shares
-the 10th year in a row of autonomous driving promises - it'll be solved soon!
The 35% vs 50% absolutely matters - how do you think future valuations are calculated?
What do you think Tesla will be worth in 2030 and why?
I've made a 3,500% return on TSLA. I feel like that's a sign I should cash in, but its only 3.8% of my portfolio. What do you all think? I guess at this point I'm never going to lose money, so maybe just hold it until I need money (or forever and give it to my kid?).
I raise this question only because I'm not sure where something goes from an investment to speculation...I honestly don't think the company is worth 1 Trillion, but what do I know?
Tesla is a maturing company. Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative. Demand is on the rise, margins are increasing, new models are on the horizon, two new factories will start production in the next 1-3 months. The energy storage and grid services side of the business is just getting started. FSD is more speculative, but could be massively profitable if solved fully. I personally won’t be shedding any of my shares in the next 2-3 years at least.
Tesla is demand limited.
Margins have fallen drastically.
One new half-baked model is here...to the tune of a few hundred units so far.
Two new factories that are manufacturing well below capacity because they are demand limited.
This post was near TSLA's ATH. It's fallen some 54% since. You absolutely should have sold.
I am attracted to TSLA because of their high R&D spending.
I am wary of TSLA because of their extremely slow process of introducing new models. The model 3 is a design that was released 6 years ago and there has been relatively modest redesign or improvements since then. The Cybertruck was announced in 2019 but then didn't actually go on sale until over 4 years later, and at a price most of the public can't afford. Full self-driving is still not available.
Somewhere there is a breakdown where those R&D investments are not translating into rapid introduction of new products. Hyundai/Kia/Genesis have 6 EVs on sale in 2024, BMW has 3, and Tesla still only has 4 (S, 3, Y, and truck) after spending many times more money than their competitors developing those products. Maybe a new inexpensive car will come out of Tesla soon, but we can guarantee it's coming from their competitors.
Also, why are Teslas becoming notorious for quality control issues and cost of ownership issues if the company invested so much into these products? Where did the money go? Mars is actually not a silly answer.
Cybertruckhashad over 2 million reservations.
* at $40k, 500 mile range.
QuoteAs of today, TSLA is down 49% from the date of your postI, ColoradoTribe, hereby stand by my October 2021 statement and reaffirm that Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative.
As I spelled out above, my predictions about the company performance were spot on.
It also proves the stock price can lag the company’s performance significantly and for long periods. Just like the period we’re in right now, where Tesla continues to execute at a high level (as I laid out in my previous post) but the market is slow to catch up to reality.
How was a stock that lost 49% not considered risky even in retrospect?
There's a fair point to be made about cherry picking time periods to make a case for or against TSLA. Clearly, those that invested pre-2021ish have done quite well, in particular anyone that sold before about 2022.
However, one of the fascinating things about long threads like this is the ability to go back and see analysis/predictions on the record. IMO, these are fair game.
I don't think I was too far off in my first post (I think?) to this thread (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg3090145/#msg3090145), with concerns around TSLA's high PE ratio in an increasingly competitive EV market. In subsequent posts I quoted forecasts from Ford that proved wildly optimistic (like 200k Mach E units in 2023, but really more like 40k). I'm sure I was wrong in other areas as well... e.g. EV growth slowed more than many expected, including me.
@ColoradoTribe you've been very active on this thread making your case for TSLA based on your investing thesis. I'd like to draw attention to one of your posts from Oct 28, 2021 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg2922423/#msg2922423) (emphasis added):Tesla is a maturing company. Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative. Demand is on the rise, margins are increasing, new models are on the horizon, two new factories will start production in the next 1-3 months. The energy storage and grid services side of the business is just getting started. FSD is more speculative, but could be massively profitable if solved fully. I personally won’t be shedding any of my shares in the next 2-3 years at least.
As of today, TSLA is down 49% from the date of your post. For comparison, VTI in this same window is positive 2.6%. In fact TSLA has trailed VTI during this period with the exception of a couple weeks. Do you still stand by your analysis?
Still waiting to see what CAGR will be for the EV industry and TSLA in 2026 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg3090937/#msg3090937).
The stock price performance short term has no bearing or connection to the company's performance. Do you think Tesla wasn’t growing as a company when it traded sideways or worse from 2013 to 2019? Of course not! I invested in 2013 and had to gut out 6 years of lateral movement during a bull market. I was able to do that because I knew Tesla was executing on its plans all the while and my investment thesis was intact despite Wall Street’s ignorance.
Same is the case now. Look at my post above that you quoted. EV demand is on the rise to this day (check the YOY global sales of EVs) and don’t fall for the failing OEM's (Ford, GM, VW) narrative that they can’t sell their EVs because of "demand issues". They can’t sell their EVs because they can’t compete with Tesla (and Chinese EVs) on price and performance. The energy storage and grid services business is taking off, growing over 50% YOY while increasing margins. Two new megapack factories are under construction in China and NV. The Tesla semi factory is under construction in NV. New models have come to market (CyberTruck, refreshed M3) or are under development (Gen 3 platform) for 2025. Two new factories (Austin and Berlin) are cranking out vehicles. Model Y was the best selling car of any kind (BEV, ICE, etc.) in the world in 2023.
So, Tesla did or is doing everything I said they would be doing in my post from Oct 2019. I care about execution and trends, not short term noise and stock volatility. I waited six years for the first big jump and can wait another six if necessary for the next leg up when reality once again smacks WS in the face.
You didn't answer my question. Do you stand by your statement from Oct 2021 that "Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative"?
I didn't ask about 2013-2019 .. TSLA was indeed a good investment in that time period, which I have already acknowledged here.
You doubled down on your investing thesis rather than answer my direct question. Are we then to understand that you stand by your claim that TSLA was not a risky investment in 2021? If so, then those reading this thread should understand that you have a rather extreme tolerance for risk, perhaps risk seeking even, and so your thesis and analysis should be calibrated accordingly.
If, on the other hand, you do not stand by your claim, a simple "I was wrong" is sufficient. My intention isn't to gloat or rub it in your face. We all make predictions about an unknowable future, and we all get it wrong. What I'm looking for is what we as a community can learn from this, where did your analysis go wrong?
Good grief grand inquisitor, I thought it was pretty obvious from my response that I stand by my statement. If everything I predicted would happen has happened when I made that claim why wouldn’t I stand by that statement? But here, if this helps; I, ColoradoTribe, hereby stand by my October 2021 statement and reaffirm that Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative.
As for the rest of your post, I assume you’re joking? As I spelled out above, my predictions about the company performance were spot on. I never made a prediction on stock price, because the stock price can be disconnected from reality for long periods of time, see 2013 - 2019 (and I don’t care if you asked about that time period or not, its relevant to my long-term Tesla investment and my 7-figure gains). It also proves the stock price can lag the company’s performance significantly and for long periods. Just like the period we’re in right now, where Tesla continues to execute at a high level (as I laid out in my previous post) but the market is slow to catch up to reality.
What the community can learn from this is don’t listen to poorly informed internet geniuses with axes to grind and no skin in the game. If they were considering an investment in Tesla and listened to you or your ilk when this thread started they missed out on 9X gains based on today’s close or 19X gains had they cashed out at the ATH a mere 3.5 years after this thread started.
The fact that you only have the bravado to come on this thread and spout off when the short term stock price is down tells me all I need to know. I on the other hand have stuck to my simple investment thesis since 2013 regardless of short-term noice, stock volatility, and meaningless distractions. It probably seems risky to those following the news headlines and not diving deep into the market and Tesla’s underlying performance, engineering and execution. I don’t know why others feel the need to attribute others’ success to either luck or extreme risk taking. The risk with Tesla was no more than with any other tech growth stock, I would argue far less.
Thesis:
1) Are EVs, renewable energy and energy storage the future?
2) Is Tesla the leader in EVs and energy storage?
Hostility and name calling weakens your argument.
You are unable to admit that you made an inaccurate forecast in Oct 2021. TSLA has consistently under-performed the market over this +2 year period, so it's not like I'm picking on a short term trend. Is it really such a big deal to concede this point? I'm trying to give you the opportunity to demonstrate a sliver of intellectual integrity.
Since you have a 7-figure gain in TSLA this means you have a lot riding on the success or failure of the company. This helps explain some of your responses. The fact that I don't directly own or short TSLA makes me a more objective outsider.
If the question "is Tesla a good investment?" can only evaluated based on your early investment then your thesis is specific to you alone and is irrelevant to the wider discussion on this thread.
I think the lesson for the community is: beware advice from those with a large financial and psychological stake in an investment.
QuoteAs of today, TSLA is down 49% from the date of your postI, ColoradoTribe, hereby stand by my October 2021 statement and reaffirm that Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative.
As I spelled out above, my predictions about the company performance were spot on.
It also proves the stock price can lag the company’s performance significantly and for long periods. Just like the period we’re in right now, where Tesla continues to execute at a high level (as I laid out in my previous post) but the market is slow to catch up to reality.
How was a stock that lost 49% not considered risky even in retrospect?
The stock price is not the company! It’s only a loss if you panic and sell. Look at the underlying fundamentals, execution, market trends, quality of the engineering, hiring practices, the 30 billion in assets with virtually zero debt, the nearly 5 billion in FCF in 2023, a steady and growing stream of supercharger revenue, the entire industry adopting Tesla’s charging standard (NACs) and signing on to use Tesla’s charging network. The market can be highly irrational in the short to medium term, but those times offer the greatest buying opportunities.
I should add here, that prior to reaching FI, I never invested more than $5,000 in any individual stock. I own a significant chunk of VTI and I never had more in Tesla than I could afford to lose, as it should be when investing in any individual stock.
QuoteAs of today, TSLA is down 49% from the date of your postI, ColoradoTribe, hereby stand by my October 2021 statement and reaffirm that Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative.
As I spelled out above, my predictions about the company performance were spot on.
It also proves the stock price can lag the company’s performance significantly and for long periods. Just like the period we’re in right now, where Tesla continues to execute at a high level (as I laid out in my previous post) but the market is slow to catch up to reality.
How was a stock that lost 49% not considered risky even in retrospect?
I, ColoradoTribe, hereby stand by my October 2021 statement and reaffirm that Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative.
QuoteAs of today, TSLA is down 49% from the date of your postI, ColoradoTribe, hereby stand by my October 2021 statement and reaffirm that Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative.
As I spelled out above, my predictions about the company performance were spot on.
It also proves the stock price can lag the company’s performance significantly and for long periods. Just like the period we’re in right now, where Tesla continues to execute at a high level (as I laid out in my previous post) but the market is slow to catch up to reality.
How was a stock that lost 49% not considered risky even in retrospect?
The stock price is not the company! It’s only a loss if you panic and sell. Look at the underlying fundamentals, execution, market trends, quality of the engineering, hiring practices, the 30 billion in assets with virtually zero debt, the nearly 5 billion in FCF in 2023, a steady and growing stream of supercharger revenue, the entire industry adopting Tesla’s charging standard (NACs) and signing on to use Tesla’s charging network. The market can be highly irrational in the short to medium term, but those times offer the greatest buying opportunities.
I should add here, that prior to reaching FI, I never invested more than $5,000 in any individual stock. I own a significant chunk of VTI and I never had more in Tesla than I could afford to lose, as it should be when investing in any individual stock.
The company is run by a megalomaniac who has pushed through a compensation package for himself that the board couldn't defend legally . . . and who has said that if he doesn't get a gigantic compensation package he's going to take important technology that the company has been developing away from it.
Don't get me wrong. Tesla has a lot of cool stuff going for it. The supercharger network is definitely part of it, large market share of EVs, good handle on debt, etc. But it's hard to look at Musk's actions and not be a little worried. His involvement is the single biggest negative for the company right now.
I, ColoradoTribe, hereby stand by my October 2021 statement and reaffirm that Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative.
And do you solemnly swear.....
...Elon Musk has an inflated sense of importance... while everyone talks about him? (*)
The company is run by a megalomaniac who has pushed through a compensation package for himself that the board couldn't defend legally . . . and who has said that if he doesn't get a gigantic compensation package he's going to take important technology that the company has been developing away from it.
Don't get me wrong. Tesla has a lot of cool stuff going for it. The supercharger network is definitely part of it, large market share of EVs, good handle on debt, etc. But it's hard to look at Musk's actions and not be a little worried. His involvement is the single biggest negative for the company right now.
"People with megalomania have delusional fantasies that they are more relevant (important) or powerful than they truly are."
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalomania
He's one of the richest people in the world, so "powerful" doesn't seem like a delusion. The man who revolutionized the car and rocket industries is important - that's not a delusion. A thread about Tesla seems an odd place to make the case that Elon Musk isn't important.
Mr Musk was paid $56 billion to increase $TSLA's market cap by $600 billion. I suggest he start a hedge fund to get paid 20%, instead of getting refused 12%.
"Under the 10-year deal, Musk was eligible to win an options tranche every time Tesla hit a series of up to 12 targets. Those targets were tied to increases in Tesla's market capitalization in $50 billion increments, and to aggressive hurdles for revenue and EBITDA growth. Musk went on to hit all 12 targets, and the options are now worth $51 billion, accounting for the cost to Musk to exercise them. He still owns the options."
https://www.reuters.com/business/elon-musks-unfathomable-56-billion-tesla-pay-package-2024-01-31
Hostility and name calling weakens your argument.
Hostility and name calling weakens your argument.
This statement is very odd to me to read. Are you not aware of how hostile, demanding, and impolite your posts here are? I am genuinely confused and wondering if you are being deliberately offensive or just can't read your own tone on the posts.
Hostility and name calling weakens your argument.
This statement is very odd to me to read. Are you not aware of how hostile, demanding, and impolite your posts here are? I am genuinely confused and wondering if you are being deliberately offensive or just can't read your own tone on the posts.
Thanks for the feedback. Appreciate it and apologize for my blindspots. Would you be willing to provide specific quotes/examples to help me understand. For the sake of ColoradoTribe let me be clear that I was referring to his use of grand Inquisitor and poorly informed Internet genius, which imo is getting into name calling.
There's a fair point to be made about cherry picking time periods to make a case for or against TSLA. Clearly, those that invested pre-2021ish have done quite well, in particular anyone that sold before about 2022.
However, one of the fascinating things about long threads like this is the ability to go back and see analysis/predictions on the record. IMO, these are fair game.
I don't think I was too far off in my first post (I think?) to this thread (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg3090145/#msg3090145), with concerns around TSLA's high PE ratio in an increasingly competitive EV market. In subsequent posts I quoted forecasts from Ford that proved wildly optimistic (like 200k Mach E units in 2023, but really more like 40k). I'm sure I was wrong in other areas as well... e.g. EV growth slowed more than many expected, including me.
@ColoradoTribe you've been very active on this thread making your case for TSLA based on your investing thesis. I'd like to draw attention to one of your posts from Oct 28, 2021 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg2922423/#msg2922423) (emphasis added):Tesla is a maturing company. Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative. Demand is on the rise, margins are increasing, new models are on the horizon, two new factories will start production in the next 1-3 months. The energy storage and grid services side of the business is just getting started. FSD is more speculative, but could be massively profitable if solved fully. I personally won’t be shedding any of my shares in the next 2-3 years at least.
As of today, TSLA is down 49% from the date of your post. For comparison, VTI in this same window is positive 2.6%. In fact TSLA has trailed VTI during this period with the exception of a couple weeks. Do you still stand by your analysis?
Still waiting to see what CAGR will be for the EV industry and TSLA in 2026 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg3090937/#msg3090937).
The stock price performance short term has no bearing or connection to the company's performance. Do you think Tesla wasn’t growing as a company when it traded sideways or worse from 2013 to 2019? Of course not! I invested in 2013 and had to gut out 6 years of lateral movement during a bull market. I was able to do that because I knew Tesla was executing on its plans all the while and my investment thesis was intact despite Wall Street’s ignorance.
Same is the case now. Look at my post above that you quoted. EV demand is on the rise to this day (check the YOY global sales of EVs) and don’t fall for the failing OEM's (Ford, GM, VW) narrative that they can’t sell their EVs because of "demand issues". They can’t sell their EVs because they can’t compete with Tesla (and Chinese EVs) on price and performance. The energy storage and grid services business is taking off, growing over 50% YOY while increasing margins. Two new megapack factories are under construction in China and NV. The Tesla semi factory is under construction in NV. New models have come to market (CyberTruck, refreshed M3) or are under development (Gen 3 platform) for 2025. Two new factories (Austin and Berlin) are cranking out vehicles. Model Y was the best selling car of any kind (BEV, ICE, etc.) in the world in 2023.
So, Tesla did or is doing everything I said they would be doing in my post from Oct 2019. I care about execution and trends, not short term noise and stock volatility. I waited six years for the first big jump and can wait another six if necessary for the next leg up when reality once again smacks WS in the face.
You didn't answer my question. Do you stand by your statement from Oct 2021 that "Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative"?
I didn't ask about 2013-2019 .. TSLA was indeed a good investment in that time period, which I have already acknowledged here.
You doubled down on your investing thesis rather than answer my direct question. Are we then to understand that you stand by your claim that TSLA was not a risky investment in 2021? If so, then those reading this thread should understand that you have a rather extreme tolerance for risk, perhaps risk seeking even, and so your thesis and analysis should be calibrated accordingly.
If, on the other hand, you do not stand by your claim, a simple "I was wrong" is sufficient. My intention isn't to gloat or rub it in your face. We all make predictions about an unknowable future, and we all get it wrong. What I'm looking for is what we as a community can learn from this, where did your analysis go wrong?
Dude, it's a debate. "You didn't answer my question" is perfectly acceptable, I would not be upset of offended if someone said that to me IRL or on the forum.
If someone said "you're wrong because you're stupid" that would pretty obviously be outside of the forum etiquette.
I mean, if we're just registering our opinions here, great! But most of us are interested in digging into each other's positions to see what's useful (or not) about a dissenting opinion.
If you don't like that, I guess don't participate in the forum?
-W
If you don't like that, I guess don't participate in the forum?
There's a fair point to be made about cherry picking time periods to make a case for or against TSLA. Clearly, those that invested pre-2021ish have done quite well, in particular anyone that sold before about 2022.
However, one of the fascinating things about long threads like this is the ability to go back and see analysis/predictions on the record. IMO, these are fair game.
I don't think I was too far off in my first post (I think?) to this thread (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg3090145/#msg3090145), with concerns around TSLA's high PE ratio in an increasingly competitive EV market. In subsequent posts I quoted forecasts from Ford that proved wildly optimistic (like 200k Mach E units in 2023, but really more like 40k). I'm sure I was wrong in other areas as well... e.g. EV growth slowed more than many expected, including me.
@ColoradoTribe you've been very active on this thread making your case for TSLA based on your investing thesis. I'd like to draw attention to one of your posts from Oct 28, 2021 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg2922423/#msg2922423) (emphasis added):Tesla is a maturing company. Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative. Demand is on the rise, margins are increasing, new models are on the horizon, two new factories will start production in the next 1-3 months. The energy storage and grid services side of the business is just getting started. FSD is more speculative, but could be massively profitable if solved fully. I personally won’t be shedding any of my shares in the next 2-3 years at least.
As of today, TSLA is down 49% from the date of your post. For comparison, VTI in this same window is positive 2.6%. In fact TSLA has trailed VTI during this period with the exception of a couple weeks. Do you still stand by your analysis?
Still waiting to see what CAGR will be for the EV industry and TSLA in 2026 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/msg3090937/#msg3090937).
The stock price performance short term has no bearing or connection to the company's performance. Do you think Tesla wasn’t growing as a company when it traded sideways or worse from 2013 to 2019? Of course not! I invested in 2013 and had to gut out 6 years of lateral movement during a bull market. I was able to do that because I knew Tesla was executing on its plans all the while and my investment thesis was intact despite Wall Street’s ignorance.
Same is the case now. Look at my post above that you quoted. EV demand is on the rise to this day (check the YOY global sales of EVs) and don’t fall for the failing OEM's (Ford, GM, VW) narrative that they can’t sell their EVs because of "demand issues". They can’t sell their EVs because they can’t compete with Tesla (and Chinese EVs) on price and performance. The energy storage and grid services business is taking off, growing over 50% YOY while increasing margins. Two new megapack factories are under construction in China and NV. The Tesla semi factory is under construction in NV. New models have come to market (CyberTruck, refreshed M3) or are under development (Gen 3 platform) for 2025. Two new factories (Austin and Berlin) are cranking out vehicles. Model Y was the best selling car of any kind (BEV, ICE, etc.) in the world in 2023.
So, Tesla did or is doing everything I said they would be doing in my post from Oct 2019. I care about execution and trends, not short term noise and stock volatility. I waited six years for the first big jump and can wait another six if necessary for the next leg up when reality once again smacks WS in the face.
You didn't answer my question. Do you stand by your statement from Oct 2021 that "Tesla as an investment has never been less risky or speculative"?
I didn't ask about 2013-2019 .. TSLA was indeed a good investment in that time period, which I have already acknowledged here.
You doubled down on your investing thesis rather than answer my direct question. Are we then to understand that you stand by your claim that TSLA was not a risky investment in 2021? If so, then those reading this thread should understand that you have a rather extreme tolerance for risk, perhaps risk seeking even, and so your thesis and analysis should be calibrated accordingly.
If, on the other hand, you do not stand by your claim, a simple "I was wrong" is sufficient. My intention isn't to gloat or rub it in your face. We all make predictions about an unknowable future, and we all get it wrong. What I'm looking for is what we as a community can learn from this, where did your analysis go wrong?
To me this read like an attoney questioning a hostile witness (or a perp!) on the stand, rather than casual converstion on the internet.
My underlying assumption is that no one is owed any information from anyone here! So to consistently and repeatedly demand that someone answers your questions in a format that you desire strikes me as rude and aggressive.
In General, Coloradotribe feels that Tesla is a good company with positive prospects and I think that is pretty clear. So to my reading, I didn't even see a point to the questions, because I already knew the answer without a "badgering the witness" approach. I also felt that from Coloradotribe's perspective, he was focused on company prospects long term rather than the stock price whereas you were only focused on stock price.
Which I think is fine! Both perspectives have value depending on someone's POV. But it seemed that you wouldn't acknowledge this difference and only wanted to focus on stock price as an indicator of investment and wouldn't allow the other POV into the discourse. Which is a bit controlling when you are trying to have a convesation with someone. I think it was clear that stock price fluctuations weren't a concern to CT, and that should have been enough for the conversation.
If you don't like that, I guess don't participate in the forum?
That includes, but is not limited to:
1. Don't be a jerk.
2. Attack an argument, not a person.
3. Your posts must not break any laws.
4. Be respectful of the site and other members.
5. No spam.
6. Use good taste. (See example below, 5/11/15.)
Yes, the ruling has to do with violating rules about corporate governance, not the absolute amount of compensation. In theory the situation would be no different if his pay has been $100 - the problems involved not negotiating with a truly independent board and misleading stockholders.
That said I think Musk being gone would probably be good for Tesla at this point.
-W
Speaking in court, Judge Kathaleen McCormick said the amount was “unfathomable” and blamed Tesla’s leadership for not properly informing shareholders about it.
Varallo [who filed the lawsuit] also said the board did not disclose that Musk had designed the pay package himself or how close Musk was to some of Tesla’s payment committee members, such as Antonio Gracias and Ira Ehrenpreis, who the CEO has had personal and business relationships with for several years.https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/1/why-did-a-court-cancel-elon-musks-tesla-salary-package
Was Tesla a good investment in 2018? Obviously yes.
Is it a good investment today? Maybe.
-W
Was Tesla a good investment in 2018? Obviously yes.
Is it a good investment today? Maybe.
-W
Would it have been a good idea to buy when it was added to the S&P 500? No.
Was Tesla a good investment in 2018? Obviously yes.
Is it a good investment today? Maybe.
-W
Would it have been a good idea to buy when it was added to the S&P 500? No.
That’s TBD.
Was Tesla a good investment in 2018? Obviously yes.
Is it a good investment today? Maybe.
-W
Would it have been a good idea to buy when it was added to the S&P 500? No.
That’s TBD.
Sorry, I wasn't clear.
Buying Tesla and holding it until today would've been a worse choice than buying the S&P 500 and holding it until today. That's demonstrably true.
"While companies do have to pay a franchise tax to register in Delaware, this is capped at $200,000 per year. If Tesla were to reincorporate in Texas, they would have to pay 0.75% of revenues per year in franchise taxes to the state, which comes to considerably more than $200,000 per year."
29:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkuAXOMYwA4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkuAXOMYwA4)
On $96.773B in revenue over the past 12 months, that would be about $726 million, per year, in extra taxes paid by TSLA so that the captive board could compensate Musk with more of the regular shareholders' money. Reincorporating in Texas as Musk suggested would be a decision that could cost shareholders billions, and would only serve one man. That's not to say it won't happen.
"While companies do have to pay a franchise tax to register in Delaware, this is capped at $200,000 per year. If Tesla were to reincorporate in Texas, they would have to pay 0.75% of revenues per year in franchise taxes to the state, which comes to considerably more than $200,000 per year."
29:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkuAXOMYwA4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkuAXOMYwA4)
On $96.773B in revenue over the past 12 months, that would be about $726 million, per year, in extra taxes paid by TSLA so that the captive board could compensate Musk with more of the regular shareholders' money. Reincorporating in Texas as Musk suggested would be a decision that could cost shareholders billions, and would only serve one man. That's not to say it won't happen.
Thanks for this info. Musk said would hav shareholders vote, does that mean I will get a say? Or only big wheelers?
"While companies do have to pay a franchise tax to register in Delaware, this is capped at $200,000 per year. If Tesla were to reincorporate in Texas, they would have to pay 0.75% of revenues per year in franchise taxes to the state, which comes to considerably more than $200,000 per year."
29:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkuAXOMYwA4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkuAXOMYwA4)
On $96.773B in revenue over the past 12 months, that would be about $726 million, per year, in extra taxes paid by TSLA so that the captive board could compensate Musk with more of the regular shareholders' money. Reincorporating in Texas as Musk suggested would be a decision that could cost shareholders billions, and would only serve one man. That's not to say it won't happen.
Thanks for this info. Musk said would hav shareholders vote, does that mean I will get a say? Or only big wheelers?
Based on past actions, probably will just be a poll on Twitter. That he'll ignore if he doesn't like the results.
Fair enough, it's both.
Regardless, IMO the best thing that could happen to Tesla at this point would be for Musk to ride off into the sunset and do something else, while someone who is actually decent at managing a near-mature company and can keep their trap shut takes over for a fraction of the pay.
-W
Fair enough, it's both.
Regardless, IMO the best thing that could happen to Tesla at this point would be for Musk to ride off into the sunset and do something else, while someone who is actually decent at managing a near-mature company and can keep their trap shut takes over for a fraction of the pay.
-W
I retired from a career in designing anti-collision and other safety avionics that all works together within an integrated system as the skies around major airports got very busy back in the mid 80s. The airborne computers communicate with each other and ground control to keep separation. We don't have an integrated approach like that with ground transpo, so I will be impressed if Tesla does actually implement full self-driving with their equipment. His ridiculously optimistic schedule and robo-taxi claims didn't really inspire confidence.
It makes sense that fully self-driving cars should not be unleashed onto public roads until intense and comprehensive third-party testing is completed. I don't care about how many million miles are claimed by manufacturers. I also do not like this idea that you have to baby-sit the car and react within so-many seconds. I read a report that stated that Tesla drivers have the highest accident rate of any major car brand. Didn't give any root causes, but now they have this big safety recall as well. I started looking at getting a Tesla a few years ago; but frankly I no longer care too much for the gentleman. Not gonna complain about the contributions to my portfolio from Tesla soaring stock valuations over the years, but it is only indirect ownership now.
Fair enough, it's both.
Regardless, IMO the best thing that could happen to Tesla at this point would be for Musk to ride off into the sunset and do something else, while someone who is actually decent at managing a near-mature company and can keep their trap shut takes over for a fraction of the pay.
-W
I retired from a career in designing anti-collision and other safety avionics that all works together within an integrated system as the skies around major airports got very busy back in the mid 80s. The airborne computers communicate with each other and ground control to keep separation. We don't have an integrated approach like that with ground transpo, so I will be impressed if Tesla does actually implement full self-driving with their equipment. His ridiculously optimistic schedule and robo-taxi claims didn't really inspire confidence.
It makes sense that fully self-driving cars should not be unleashed onto public roads until intense and comprehensive third-party testing is completed. I don't care about how many million miles are claimed by manufacturers. I also do not like this idea that you have to baby-sit the car and react within so-many seconds. I read a report that stated that Tesla drivers have the highest accident rate of any major car brand. Didn't give any root causes, but now they have this big safety recall as well. I started looking at getting a Tesla a few years ago; but frankly I no longer care too much for the gentleman. Not gonna complain about the contributions to my portfolio from Tesla soaring stock valuations over the years, but it is only indirect ownership now.
Do you know what the “big safety recall” was about? The “recall”had to with font size on some warning display symbols. There were no accidents attributed to the issue, which was corrected via over-the-air update before the “recall" was even issued to owners? They really need to stop calling it a recall if owners don’t have to bring the cars in to be fixed. The study you cited about Tesla having the highest rate of accident did not disclose its methodology, which make it highly suspect.
As for FSD, time will tell. No one thought you could land a rocket vertically and reuse it until SpaceX did it. Musk has a way of making the impossible, possible, even it takes longer than promised.
This was not a causal study; the study did not analyze the reason for an incident. But it comes amid news that Tesla recently recalled more than 2 million Tesla vehicles over a safety issue related to its Autopilot software — specifically, a feature called Autosteer, which is part of the driver-assistance system. The recall affects nearly all the cars Tesla has sold in the United States.
Geez. Imagine the insurance premiums. This is no doubt one of the reasons Hertz dropped them.
Also, I'm not seeing a pattern of improvement over 5 years. Wasn't the AI supposed to get smarter as it gathered more information? Isn't the new hardware supposedly faster? This is near drunk driving levels of bad.
The overall higher Tesla crash statistics are something I can attribute to their fast acceleration, and marketing appeal to people who drive like shit. But it does not appear we are on a path to FSD, unless Tesla is dialing back the carefulness of the system and maintaining an "acceptable" crash rate with fewer false positives (e.g. slams on brakes when a plastic bag blows across the road).
Are we looking at the same graph @ChpBstrd?No, I was thinking accidents per miles instead of miles per accident. Erased. Time to drink a coffee.
@bacchi Are you really arguing with me pointing out that another poster was reading the units of a graph backwards? (And to be fair I've definitely made similar errors pre-coffee.)
The news media doesn't report evenly on all 6 million car crashes per year. Tesla doesn't cause most of those 6 million crashes, but Tesla crashes get the most news coverage.
Lending Tree reported the data on which that Forbes article is based:
"To determine the best and worst drivers by car brand, researchers calculated the number of driving incidents per 1,000 drivers by brand in every state."
https://www.lendingtree.com/insurance/brand-incidents-study/
They counted number of drivers, not the number of miles. For auto insurance purposes, risky drivers are more important than how many miles they drive. But when measuring safety, the number of miles needs to be considered. Tesla compiled data using miles driven with and without Autopilot:
From https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport data :
<snip?
For those distrustful of Tesla, here is Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ratings on the Model 3 and Model Y.
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/tesla/model-3-4-door-sedan/2024
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/top-safety-picks/2023/all/tesla#award-winners
@bacchi Are you really arguing with me pointing out that another poster was reading the units of a graph backwards? (And to be fair I've definitely made similar errors pre-coffee.)
No, I responded to the wrong poster.
bacchi - I get "permission denied" visiting the 2018 demographics link you provided.
Because I crammed too much into one post, I kept each comment short. What I found interesting was the comparison with and without Autopilot. Autopilot appears to cut accidents by a factor of four among Tesla's vehicles. I also like seeing that in 2018-2019 there was only a factor of two separating them, which suggests real improvements.
If you look further down in the Lending Tree report, Tesla owners have the lowest rate of DUIs among all brands. I suspect drunk Tesla drivers are more likely to use Autopilot, which makes it less likely police pull them over for a DUI (and reduces accidents).
According to Lending Tree, Mercedes-Benz ranks in the safest quartile. Another website ranks "Mercedes-Benz G-Class" as the least driven car, in miles/year. Driving a car less leads to fewer accidents. Even if Teslas are safer each mile driven, if they are driven much more, they could wind up having more accidents. That would fit all of the data I've seen so far.
The news media doesn't report evenly on all 6 million car crashes per year. Tesla doesn't cause most of those 6 million crashes, but Tesla crashes get the most news coverage.
Lending Tree reported the data on which that Forbes article is based:
"To determine the best and worst drivers by car brand, researchers calculated the number of driving incidents per 1,000 drivers by brand in every state."
https://www.lendingtree.com/insurance/brand-incidents-study/
They counted number of drivers, not the number of miles. For auto insurance purposes, risky drivers are more important than how many miles they drive. But when measuring safety, the number of miles needs to be considered. Tesla compiled data using miles driven with and without Autopilot:
From https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport data :
<snip?
For those distrustful of Tesla, here is Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ratings on the Model 3 and Model Y.
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/tesla/model-3-4-door-sedan/2024
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/top-safety-picks/2023/all/tesla#award-winners
We should always be skeptical of any data a corporation puts out that shows its product are clearly superior.
There's no reason specified why a Tesla, without autopilot, should be so much more safer than other cars. Note that this isn't post-accident, either, where structural components and airbags and crumple zones matter; this is avoiding getting into an accident in the first place. What makes Tesla drivers and Tesla cars so much better? Is it the battery? The touch screen? Are Tesla owners just much better drivers?
The news media doesn't report evenly on all 6 million car crashes per year. Tesla doesn't cause most of those 6 million crashes, but Tesla crashes get the most news coverage.
Lending Tree reported the data on which that Forbes article is based:
"To determine the best and worst drivers by car brand, researchers calculated the number of driving incidents per 1,000 drivers by brand in every state."
https://www.lendingtree.com/insurance/brand-incidents-study/
They counted number of drivers, not the number of miles. For auto insurance purposes, risky drivers are more important than how many miles they drive. But when measuring safety, the number of miles needs to be considered. Tesla compiled data using miles driven with and without Autopilot:
From https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport data :
<snip?
For those distrustful of Tesla, here is Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ratings on the Model 3 and Model Y.
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/tesla/model-3-4-door-sedan/2024
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/top-safety-picks/2023/all/tesla#award-winners
We should always be skeptical of any data a corporation puts out that shows its product are clearly superior.
There's no reason specified why a Tesla, without autopilot, should be so much more safer than other cars. Note that this isn't post-accident, either, where structural components and airbags and crumple zones matter; this is avoiding getting into an accident in the first place. What makes Tesla drivers and Tesla cars so much better? Is it the battery? The touch screen? Are Tesla owners just much better drivers?
so - from this staement I assume you've never been in one? either as driver or passenger....
The news media doesn't report evenly on all 6 million car crashes per year. Tesla doesn't cause most of those 6 million crashes, but Tesla crashes get the most news coverage.
Lending Tree reported the data on which that Forbes article is based:
"To determine the best and worst drivers by car brand, researchers calculated the number of driving incidents per 1,000 drivers by brand in every state."
https://www.lendingtree.com/insurance/brand-incidents-study/
They counted number of drivers, not the number of miles. For auto insurance purposes, risky drivers are more important than how many miles they drive. But when measuring safety, the number of miles needs to be considered. Tesla compiled data using miles driven with and without Autopilot:
From https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport data :
<snip?
For those distrustful of Tesla, here is Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ratings on the Model 3 and Model Y.
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/tesla/model-3-4-door-sedan/2024
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/top-safety-picks/2023/all/tesla#award-winners
We should always be skeptical of any data a corporation puts out that shows its product are clearly superior.
There's no reason specified why a Tesla, without autopilot, should be so much more safer than other cars. Note that this isn't post-accident, either, where structural components and airbags and crumple zones matter; this is avoiding getting into an accident in the first place. What makes Tesla drivers and Tesla cars so much better? Is it the battery? The touch screen? Are Tesla owners just much better drivers?
so - from this staement I assume you've never been in one? either as driver or passenger....
That would be an incorrect assumption.
We should always be skeptical of any data a corporation puts out that shows its product are clearly superior.
There's no reason specified why a Tesla, without autopilot, should be so much more safer than other cars. Note that this isn't post-accident, either, where structural components and airbags and crumple zones matter; this is avoiding getting into an accident in the first place. What makes Tesla drivers and Tesla cars so much better? Is it the battery? The touch screen? Are Tesla owners just much better drivers?
so - from this staement I assume you've never been in one? either as driver or passenger....
That would be an incorrect assumption.
Then why would you sarcastically ask if a touch screen made the telsa drivers safer rather than the visibility provided by the camera system, the screen that shows 360 of objects/people surrounding the vehicle and the forward collision warning system?
Ignoring data that contradicts your POV doesn't inspire confidence in your conclusions.
To the last question, probably, at least compared to the average. When the US average includes teenagers driving an old Subaru wagon, like my neighbor, and an 80 year old driving an Escalade, when he really shouldn't be driving at all, the results look good for 45 year olds driving premium cars who are well educated.* Over 40% of US Tesla drivers are in California**, too, where ice isn't usually a problem.
We should always be skeptical of any data a corporation puts out that shows its product are clearly superior.
There's no reason specified why a Tesla, without autopilot, should be so much more safer than other cars. Note that this isn't post-accident, either, where structural components and airbags and crumple zones matter; this is avoiding getting into an accident in the first place. What makes Tesla drivers and Tesla cars so much better? Is it the battery? The touch screen? Are Tesla owners just much better drivers?
so - from this staement I assume you've never been in one? either as driver or passenger....
That would be an incorrect assumption.
Then why would you sarcastically ask if a touch screen made the telsa drivers safer rather than the visibility provided by the camera system, the screen that shows 360 of objects/people surrounding the vehicle and the forward collision warning system?
How do you turn those off or adjust the setting?QuoteIgnoring data that contradicts your POV doesn't inspire confidence in your conclusions.
Cutting off the last part of my quote doesn't inspire confidence in your conclusions. I'll post it here and maybe you can address it.To the last question, probably, at least compared to the average. When the US average includes teenagers driving an old Subaru wagon, like my neighbor, and an 80 year old driving an Escalade, when he really shouldn't be driving at all, the results look good for 45 year olds driving premium cars who are well educated.* Over 40% of US Tesla drivers are in California**, too, where ice isn't usually a problem.
What are you really looking for here? What I am seeing is that when data makes tesla look bad - that is "real". When data makes tesla look good, we need to "contextualize" it away with supposition and speculation.
The US isn't the only country with tesla users. the nordid countries have a lot of snow and a lot of teslas. What is happening there? I don't know. I'm sure you can find some negative info to share, though
“While we were anticipating a bad first quarter, this was an unmitigated disaster that is hard to explain away,” he said in a note to clients. “We view this as a seminal moment in the Tesla story for Musk to either turn this around and reverse the black eye first quarter performance. Otherwise, some darker days could clearly be ahead that could disrupt the long-term Tesla narrative.”
The most likely explanation is increasing competition from other carmakers, and perhaps damage to the Tesla brand (https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/would-be-tesla-buyers-snub-company-musks-reputation-dips-2024-04-01/). Both things predicted on this thread years ago. Will be interesting to see what the margins are when Q1 financials are reported. Seems that the EV market is, in fact, becoming a highly competitive low-margin business, which really calls into question TSLA's high valuation.
Tesla has been surprising market to the upside for so long and investors became sloppy and have been expecting miracles..
For anyone that is not emotionally invested in this stock, can see its weakness from a mile away. It is only matter of time for stock to comeback to earth.
- A Toxic CEO that has been actively alienating its core customer base.
- End of Free money and tightening financial conditions.
- Tech Layoffs.
- Mature competition in US and intense competition globally
- Product line up that is becoming stale.
The most likely explanation is increasing competition from other carmakers, and perhaps damage to the Tesla brand (https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/would-be-tesla-buyers-snub-company-musks-reputation-dips-2024-04-01/). Both things predicted on this thread years ago. Will be interesting to see what the margins are when Q1 financials are reported. Seems that the EV market is, in fact, becoming a highly competitive low-margin business, which really calls into question TSLA's high valuation.
I think that the EV market is also pretty saturated on the demand side. Most people who wanted a new cool EV has got one. The prices are plunging for all sorts of EVs. Hybrids seem to be gaining in popularity. I'm sad about this as I'm holding out for a new (used) hybrid but the prices are still too high for my taste. The good news is my 2007 Prius is still humming along for now.
The most likely explanation is increasing competition from other carmakers, and perhaps damage to the Tesla brand (https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/would-be-tesla-buyers-snub-company-musks-reputation-dips-2024-04-01/). Both things predicted on this thread years ago. Will be interesting to see what the margins are when Q1 financials are reported. Seems that the EV market is, in fact, becoming a highly competitive low-margin business, which really calls into question TSLA's high valuation.
I think that the EV market is also pretty saturated on the demand side. Most people who wanted a new cool EV has got one. The prices are plunging for all sorts of EVs. Hybrids seem to be gaining in popularity. I'm sad about this as I'm holding out for a new (used) hybrid but the prices are still too high for my taste. The good news is my 2007 Prius is still humming along for now.
What is true is that demand has softened across the entire car industry and Tesla has not been immune to it. Hybrids are the worst of both worlds. A car where either the EV drive train pulls around an engine or the engine pulls around a heavy battery and you have twice the amount of stuff that can fail or needs maintaining. Tesla has proven EVs can handle all use cases and the time where hybrids made sense has passed, with some pretty limited exceptions.
The most likely explanation is increasing competition from other carmakers, and perhaps damage to the Tesla brand (https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/would-be-tesla-buyers-snub-company-musks-reputation-dips-2024-04-01/). Both things predicted on this thread years ago. ... Seems that the EV market is, in fact, becoming a highly competitive low-margin business, which really calls into question TSLA's high valuation.You mean like this?
Tesla's high car prices and their high stock price are a result of its high margins. Period.
Consumers are willing to pay these high margins because no other car manufacturers are mass producing products like Teslas (except for a few startups, whose products are not yet widely available).
To me, that's remarkably shaky ground. Most of the world's auto manufacturers are rolling out Tesla-like vehicles in the next couple of years. Tesla will eventually be forced to spend money on marketing, like their competitors are doing, and they will have to lower prices / margins to meet the competition. Meanwhile, Tesla's sales of regulatory credits will diminish.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/04/25/heres-the-secret-behind-teslas-industry-leading-ma/ (https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/04/25/heres-the-secret-behind-teslas-industry-leading-ma/)
A 9% decline in deliveries for the quarter is a disaster for a company that's still priced like a growth stock. My back-of-the envelope math is that's a $1.5B to $2.0B revenue hit when compared to Q1 of last year.IDK if Tesla will fall to a PE of 20 simply because their lead in self-driving tech offers some hope for future revenue growth and propped-up margins. But a PE of 25-35 is not out of the realm of possibilities. They're currently at a PE of 38.75.
I'd still give Tesla a bit of a premium compared with traditional automakers, as their 17% margins are still much better than the Ford/GM 9%-10% margins. But the growth story is done for. Particularly since they just launched Cybertruck, but don't consider that a growth engine.
These are rough numbers, but should be a reasonable guide.
GM trades at a P/E of 6 and Ford trades at a P/E of 15.
This gives Tesla a fair value of $71/share at a PE of 15 and $95/share at PE 20. However, that's before this Q1 revenue decline, which means fair value is probably quite a bit lower. This stock still has a long ways to fall before falling below fair value.
There's a price that the shares will make sense again. But we're not there yet.
I expect to see the first Tesla advertisements in late 2024.
You’d be surprised how many people have no idea about Tesla’s range, supercharger network, and lower pricing. New Tesla Model Y for less than $30k after federal tax credit.
A 9% decline in deliveries for the quarter is a disaster for a company that's still priced like a growth stock. My back-of-the envelope math is that's a $1.5B to $2.0B revenue hit when compared to Q1 of last year.
I'd still give Tesla a bit of a premium compared with traditional automakers, as their 17% margins are still much better than the Ford/GM 9%-10% margins. But the growth story is done for. Particularly since they just launched Cybertruck, but don't consider that a growth engine.
These are rough numbers, but should be a reasonable guide.
GM trades at a P/E of 6 and Ford trades at a P/E of 15.
This gives Tesla a fair value of $71/share at a PE of 15 and $95/share at PE 20. However, that's before this Q1 revenue decline, which means fair value is probably quite a bit lower. This stock still has a long ways to fall before falling below fair value.
There's a price that the shares will make sense again. But we're not there yet.
The most likely explanation is increasing competition from other carmakers, and perhaps damage to the Tesla brand (https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/would-be-tesla-buyers-snub-company-musks-reputation-dips-2024-04-01/). Both things predicted on this thread years ago. Will be interesting to see what the margins are when Q1 financials are reported. Seems that the EV market is, in fact, becoming a highly competitive low-margin business, which really calls into question TSLA's high valuation.
I think that the EV market is also pretty saturated on the demand side. Most people who wanted a new cool EV has got one. The prices are plunging for all sorts of EVs. Hybrids seem to be gaining in popularity. I'm sad about this as I'm holding out for a new (used) hybrid but the prices are still too high for my taste. The good news is my 2007 Prius is still humming along for now.
What is true is that demand has softened across the entire car industry and Tesla has not been immune to it. Hybrids are the worst of both worlds. A car where either the EV drive train pulls around an engine or the engine pulls around a heavy battery and you have twice the amount of stuff that can fail or needs maintaining. Tesla has proven EVs can handle all use cases and the time where hybrids made sense has passed, with some pretty limited exceptions.
US sales volumes were actually up almost 5% for Q1:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/u-s-auto-sales-grow-nearly-5-in-q1-despite-high-interest-rates-but-ev-growth-slows-further-dffd825b
Toyota/Lexus (maker of 27 hybrid/plug in models in NA) saw Q1 sales jump 20% in North America, with over 36% of sales being "electrified" vehicles (Standard hybrid, PHEV, and BEV):
https://pressroom.toyota.com/toyota-motor-north-america-reports-march-first-quarter-2024-u-s-sales/
The Prius, Venza, Sienna, new Camry, and new Land Cruiser are all hybrid only, while other popular models (Corolla, Rav 4, Highlander, Tacoma, Tundra) have hybrid trims available.
The hybrid batteries are typically under 2kwh, and weigh about as much as a child. Looks like most Prius batteries are around 80lbs. That's not dragging around meaningful weight. Especially when the hybrid systems result in simpler transmissions, and removal of other hardware like traditional starters which further offsets the weight of the battery.
Toyota sold over 206k "electrified" vehicles in Q1 in North America alone. Tesla doesn't share regional sales data, but sold 387k BEVs globally during that time.
Tesla produced 433k vehicles in Q1, but only sold 387k of those (globally). That 46k vehicle surplus is way more than they've seen in the past, and likely signals softening demand.
(https://www.reuters.com/graphics/TESLA-DELIVERIES/xmvjrxeybvr/chart.png)
There are certainly macro factors (high interest rates, etc) that are hurting Tesla's performance, but consumers now have far more options than they did in 2018 too. More BEVs. And the continued hybridization of typical ICEs makes them much more appealing alternatives as well.
Perhaps we're seeing differentiated pricing across the country? And/or the stacked effect of state AND federal tax credits.
The cheapest model Y the Tesla website is showing me is $34,790 after federal tax credit. But if I was in Colorado I'd qualify for another $5,000 tax credit from the state and (assuming prices otherwise stay the same), I could get an entry level Model Y for $29,790.
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/KTlAkr1_xl.png)
The most likely explanation is increasing competition from other carmakers, and perhaps damage to the Tesla brand (https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/would-be-tesla-buyers-snub-company-musks-reputation-dips-2024-04-01/). Both things predicted on this thread years ago. ... Seems that the EV market is, in fact, becoming a highly competitive low-margin business, which really calls into question TSLA's high valuation.You mean like this?Tesla's high car prices and their high stock price are a result of its high margins. Period.
Consumers are willing to pay these high margins because no other car manufacturers are mass producing products like Teslas (except for a few startups, whose products are not yet widely available).
To me, that's remarkably shaky ground. Most of the world's auto manufacturers are rolling out Tesla-like vehicles in the next couple of years. Tesla will eventually be forced to spend money on marketing, like their competitors are doing, and they will have to lower prices / margins to meet the competition. Meanwhile, Tesla's sales of regulatory credits will diminish.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/04/25/heres-the-secret-behind-teslas-industry-leading-ma/ (https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/04/25/heres-the-secret-behind-teslas-industry-leading-ma/)
So yes, the end of growth means the end of TSLA as a high margin growth stock. Here we are, a "couple of years" after 2022 when these concerns were being raised and we're watching Tesla suffer reduced sales growth at lower prices and at lower margins amid a wave of competition.A 9% decline in deliveries for the quarter is a disaster for a company that's still priced like a growth stock. My back-of-the envelope math is that's a $1.5B to $2.0B revenue hit when compared to Q1 of last year.IDK if Tesla will fall to a PE of 20 simply because their lead in self-driving tech offers some hope for future revenue growth and propped-up margins. But a PE of 25-35 is not out of the realm of possibilities. They're currently at a PE of 38.75.
I'd still give Tesla a bit of a premium compared with traditional automakers, as their 17% margins are still much better than the Ford/GM 9%-10% margins. But the growth story is done for. Particularly since they just launched Cybertruck, but don't consider that a growth engine.
These are rough numbers, but should be a reasonable guide.
GM trades at a P/E of 6 and Ford trades at a P/E of 15.
This gives Tesla a fair value of $71/share at a PE of 15 and $95/share at PE 20. However, that's before this Q1 revenue decline, which means fair value is probably quite a bit lower. This stock still has a long ways to fall before falling below fair value.
There's a price that the shares will make sense again. But we're not there yet.
The new wildcard IMO is this new political environment of protectionism and national champion manufacturers (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/chinas-economic-collision-course). Tesla's substantial investment in China is suddenly at risk because Tesla can never become one of China's national champion car companies like BYD or Nio. They could easily be forced out of the country with little bureaucratic nudges like several American financial institutions recently were, or face outright asset confiscation, the way BP was pushed out of Russia. Since Elon poured Tesla's resources into China, the country's policy changes and real estate collapse have left the country uninvestable in the opinion of many American investors and companies. Yet Tesla is stuck there, enjoying 0.2% sales growth (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/teslas-china-made-ev-sales-084018397.html) and less than a third of BYD's market share.
An invasion of Taiwan would cut TSLA in half.
In terms of brand destruction by Musk, it's only gotten worse. Antisemitic (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMiddleEast/comments/17x8og8/elon_musk_backs_tweet_says_you_have_said_the/), anti-black (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/civil-rights-groups-horrified-at-elon-musks-racist-outburst-against-black-people/ar-AA1mSZ6Q), and anti-Native-American tweets and a lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate have occurred at the exact timeframe when Tesla's core customer base became inundated with alternatives (https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g32463239/new-ev-models-us/) to Tesla products. Having a Tesla is suddenly less about green cred and is becoming an embarrassment through association with right-wing activist Elon Musk.
Meanwhile, the Cybertruck appears to be a product which will never gain mass appeal with the mainstream US truck market. It was apparently a CEO-designed vanity project, which makes it a wasted opportunity. Tesla will have to stop wasting opportunities and start delivering new products every 4-5 years like everybody else.
I expect to see the first Tesla advertisements in late 2024.
I think Salesforce at a PE of 72.3 has more growth potential than a half-Chinese heavy manufacturer at a PE of 38.75.
You’d be surprised how many people have no idea about Tesla’s range, supercharger network, and lower pricing. New Tesla Model Y for less than $30k after federal tax credit.
I was surprised at your claim of Tesla's lower pricing...I know you're a True Believer, but why that?
Cheapest Model Y:
Rear-Wheel Drive
Your Model Y $46,630
After Federal Tax Credit $39,130
A 9% decline in deliveries for the quarter is a disaster for a company that's still priced like a growth stock. My back-of-the envelope math is that's a $1.5B to $2.0B revenue hit when compared to Q1 of last year.
I'd still give Tesla a bit of a premium compared with traditional automakers, as their 17% margins are still much better than the Ford/GM 9%-10% margins. But the growth story is done for. Particularly since they just launched Cybertruck, but don't consider that a growth engine.
These are rough numbers, but should be a reasonable guide.
GM trades at a P/E of 6 and Ford trades at a P/E of 15.
This gives Tesla a fair value of $71/share at a PE of 15 and $95/share at PE 20. However, that's before this Q1 revenue decline, which means fair value is probably quite a bit lower. This stock still has a long ways to fall before falling below fair value.
There's a price that the shares will make sense again. But we're not there yet.
PE is a useless metric for this comparison. Ford lost $67k per EV they made in 2023. Tesla had a 17% margin on pure EV sales. Ford, GM, and Stellantis, after going all in on EVs and announcing ambitious plans just a few years ago, have drastically scaled back their EV plans to stop the cash hemorrhaging. Problem there is they are only delaying the pain. The only way to get to profitability on EVs is to rapidly increase scale. But they can’t rapidly increase scale because they have a vast and complex supply chain with little to no interest in EVs and they failed to secure an adequate battery supply to support profitable mass production. So, their solution is to try and convince consumers what they really want and need is a hybrid. I don’t see this strategy working either. They’re basically screwed.
The only way an investment in Ford, GM or Stellantis (or Honda, Toyota, etc.) makes any sense is if you think EVs are going away and aren’t the future. Reduced deliveries and production isn’t good news for Tesla, but this slowdown in Q1 was industry wide and not a Tesla phenom.
Your post also ignores the fact that Tesla is not just a car company. It ignores energy storage YOY growth of 50% and increasing margins and profitability for energy storage. This side of the business will exceed the car business in coming years. It ignores the AI development, computing capabilities (DOJO), and the massive revenue potential of FSD and/or Optimus. It ignores the fact that Tesla has cornered the supercharging market in NA and has secured a high margin and steadily growing subscription based service revenue stream. You also miss that Apple has given up on making EVs or autonomous car software. GM canceled their Blue Cruise program. Only Waymo remains as a competitor. I predict other car companies will soon be licensing Tesla’s FSD software the same way they were forced to latch on to Tesla’s supercharger network after failing to create their own charging networks.
Perhaps most importantly, your reliance on PE, misses the advantage Tesla has in engineering prowess. It is a highly desirable destination for the best engineering talent in the world. At the end of the day it’s the people that make the company. The pace of innovation at Tesla is staggering and Tesla is not stuck in an outdated ICE culture trying to serve two incompatible purposes at once (maintain profitable for now ICE sales AND grow EV business). Not to mention union labor and pension obligations...
Tesla is also expanding into new markets, most recently Malaysia, that can bring in new demand. A deal is nearing completion with India that will provide Tesla access to sell cars with reduced on no import tariffs in exchange for building a gigafactory in India.
Focusing on one quarter of results and PE ratios is a poor way to evaluate the company’s performance IMO. The lost production time at Fremont, Berlin, and Shanghai did affect deliveries. It takes weeks to ship cars by cargo ship, which means cars not produced mid-quarter didn’t make on ships in time for delivery in Q1. There was a story yesterday about thousands of Tesla vehicles parked at the Shanghai dock waiting to be loaded onto ships. This doesn’t account for the entire drop in deliveries, but can account for a significant portion. The remainder is from poor car sales in a slumping Chinese economy that affected all car sales in China (see BYD QOQ numbers in China) and lower than expected car sales for all makes and models in the US. These conditions are not specific to Tesla or EVs, but Tesla faired as good or better than any other EV maker under these macro conditions.
A 9% decline in deliveries for the quarter is a disaster for a company that's still priced like a growth stock. My back-of-the envelope math is that's a $1.5B to $2.0B revenue hit when compared to Q1 of last year.
I'd still give Tesla a bit of a premium compared with traditional automakers, as their 17% margins are still much better than the Ford/GM 9%-10% margins. But the growth story is done for. Particularly since they just launched Cybertruck, but don't consider that a growth engine.
These are rough numbers, but should be a reasonable guide.
GM trades at a P/E of 6 and Ford trades at a P/E of 15.
This gives Tesla a fair value of $71/share at a PE of 15 and $95/share at PE 20. However, that's before this Q1 revenue decline, which means fair value is probably quite a bit lower. This stock still has a long ways to fall before falling below fair value.
There's a price that the shares will make sense again. But we're not there yet.
PE is a useless metric for this comparison. Ford lost $67k per EV they made in 2023. Tesla had a 17% margin on pure EV sales. Ford, GM, and Stellantis, after going all in on EVs and announcing ambitious plans just a few years ago, have drastically scaled back their EV plans to stop the cash hemorrhaging. Problem there is they are only delaying the pain. The only way to get to profitability on EVs is to rapidly increase scale. But they can’t rapidly increase scale because they have a vast and complex supply chain with little to no interest in EVs and they failed to secure an adequate battery supply to support profitable mass production. So, their solution is to try and convince consumers what they really want and need is a hybrid. I don’t see this strategy working either. They’re basically screwed.
The only way an investment in Ford, GM or Stellantis (or Honda, Toyota, etc.) makes any sense is if you think EVs are going away and aren’t the future. Reduced deliveries and production isn’t good news for Tesla, but this slowdown in Q1 was industry wide and not a Tesla phenom.
Your post also ignores the fact that Tesla is not just a car company. It ignores energy storage YOY growth of 50% and increasing margins and profitability for energy storage. This side of the business will exceed the car business in coming years. It ignores the AI development, computing capabilities (DOJO), and the massive revenue potential of FSD and/or Optimus. It ignores the fact that Tesla has cornered the supercharging market in NA and has secured a high margin and steadily growing subscription based service revenue stream. You also miss that Apple has given up on making EVs or autonomous car software. GM canceled their Blue Cruise program. Only Waymo remains as a competitor. I predict other car companies will soon be licensing Tesla’s FSD software the same way they were forced to latch on to Tesla’s supercharger network after failing to create their own charging networks.
Perhaps most importantly, your reliance on PE, misses the advantage Tesla has in engineering prowess. It is a highly desirable destination for the best engineering talent in the world. At the end of the day it’s the people that make the company. The pace of innovation at Tesla is staggering and Tesla is not stuck in an outdated ICE culture trying to serve two incompatible purposes at once (maintain profitable for now ICE sales AND grow EV business). Not to mention union labor and pension obligations...
Tesla is also expanding into new markets, most recently Malaysia, that can bring in new demand. A deal is nearing completion with India that will provide Tesla access to sell cars with reduced on no import tariffs in exchange for building a gigafactory in India.
Focusing on one quarter of results and PE ratios is a poor way to evaluate the company’s performance IMO. The lost production time at Fremont, Berlin, and Shanghai did affect deliveries. It takes weeks to ship cars by cargo ship, which means cars not produced mid-quarter didn’t make on ships in time for delivery in Q1. There was a story yesterday about thousands of Tesla vehicles parked at the Shanghai dock waiting to be loaded onto ships. This doesn’t account for the entire drop in deliveries, but can account for a significant portion. The remainder is from poor car sales in a slumping Chinese economy that affected all car sales in China (see BYD QOQ numbers in China) and lower than expected car sales for all makes and models in the US. These conditions are not specific to Tesla or EVs, but Tesla faired as good or better than any other EV maker under these macro conditions.
There's plenty of room to criticize PE, or any non-DCF valuation method.
What valuation method to you prefer, and where does that put fair value for the stock in your mind?
A 9% decline in deliveries for the quarter is a disaster for a company that's still priced like a growth stock. My back-of-the envelope math is that's a $1.5B to $2.0B revenue hit when compared to Q1 of last year.
I'd still give Tesla a bit of a premium compared with traditional automakers, as their 17% margins are still much better than the Ford/GM 9%-10% margins. But the growth story is done for. Particularly since they just launched Cybertruck, but don't consider that a growth engine.
These are rough numbers, but should be a reasonable guide.
GM trades at a P/E of 6 and Ford trades at a P/E of 15.
This gives Tesla a fair value of $71/share at a PE of 15 and $95/share at PE 20. However, that's before this Q1 revenue decline, which means fair value is probably quite a bit lower. This stock still has a long ways to fall before falling below fair value.
There's a price that the shares will make sense again. But we're not there yet.
PE is a useless metric for this comparison. Ford lost $67k per EV they made in 2023. Tesla had a 17% margin on pure EV sales. Ford, GM, and Stellantis, after going all in on EVs and announcing ambitious plans just a few years ago, have drastically scaled back their EV plans to stop the cash hemorrhaging. Problem there is they are only delaying the pain. The only way to get to profitability on EVs is to rapidly increase scale. But they can’t rapidly increase scale because they have a vast and complex supply chain with little to no interest in EVs and they failed to secure an adequate battery supply to support profitable mass production. So, their solution is to try and convince consumers what they really want and need is a hybrid. I don’t see this strategy working either. They’re basically screwed.
The only way an investment in Ford, GM or Stellantis (or Honda, Toyota, etc.) makes any sense is if you think EVs are going away and aren’t the future. Reduced deliveries and production isn’t good news for Tesla, but this slowdown in Q1 was industry wide and not a Tesla phenom.
Your post also ignores the fact that Tesla is not just a car company. It ignores energy storage YOY growth of 50% and increasing margins and profitability for energy storage. This side of the business will exceed the car business in coming years. It ignores the AI development, computing capabilities (DOJO), and the massive revenue potential of FSD and/or Optimus. It ignores the fact that Tesla has cornered the supercharging market in NA and has secured a high margin and steadily growing subscription based service revenue stream. You also miss that Apple has given up on making EVs or autonomous car software. GM canceled their Blue Cruise program. Only Waymo remains as a competitor. I predict other car companies will soon be licensing Tesla’s FSD software the same way they were forced to latch on to Tesla’s supercharger network after failing to create their own charging networks.
Perhaps most importantly, your reliance on PE, misses the advantage Tesla has in engineering prowess. It is a highly desirable destination for the best engineering talent in the world. At the end of the day it’s the people that make the company. The pace of innovation at Tesla is staggering and Tesla is not stuck in an outdated ICE culture trying to serve two incompatible purposes at once (maintain profitable for now ICE sales AND grow EV business). Not to mention union labor and pension obligations...
Tesla is also expanding into new markets, most recently Malaysia, that can bring in new demand. A deal is nearing completion with India that will provide Tesla access to sell cars with reduced on no import tariffs in exchange for building a gigafactory in India.
Focusing on one quarter of results and PE ratios is a poor way to evaluate the company’s performance IMO. The lost production time at Fremont, Berlin, and Shanghai did affect deliveries. It takes weeks to ship cars by cargo ship, which means cars not produced mid-quarter didn’t make on ships in time for delivery in Q1. There was a story yesterday about thousands of Tesla vehicles parked at the Shanghai dock waiting to be loaded onto ships. This doesn’t account for the entire drop in deliveries, but can account for a significant portion. The remainder is from poor car sales in a slumping Chinese economy that affected all car sales in China (see BYD QOQ numbers in China) and lower than expected car sales for all makes and models in the US. These conditions are not specific to Tesla or EVs, but Tesla faired as good or better than any other EV maker under these macro conditions.
There's plenty of room to criticize PE, or any non-DCF valuation method.
What valuation method to you prefer, and where does that put fair value for the stock in your mind?
Wall Street, supposedly the best minds in the investing world, totally missed on Tesla despite their spreadsheets and complex valuation models. It’s a fool's errand, especially for a retail investor. I make it my business to know every bit of publicly available information about the company and track progress or lack thereof on a daily basis. What I don’t do is treat every quarterly result like it’s life or death. In reality quarterly results have little to no bearing on the company’s long-term prospects. I’ve had the same investment thesis since 2013.
Are EVs, renewable energy and energy storage the future? Is Tesla the leader in EVs and energy storage?
I’ll stay long for as long as the answer to both questions is ‘yes'. Notice this does not include supercharger, service, dojo, FSD or Optimus as growing/potential revenue streams. If I had listened to every expert with a valuation spreadsheet I would have missed out on 20X gains and sold long ago. I’d be willing to look at your non-PE based valuation model for Tesla, since you seem to be into valuations.
In the broadest terms, I have a sense for when the SP is outpacing performance/progress and when the SP is behind performance/progress with respect to the company’s mission and guidance. The last run up was overheated for sure. The stock is currently undervalued now IMO.
A 9% decline in deliveries for the quarter is a disaster for a company that's still priced like a growth stock. My back-of-the envelope math is that's a $1.5B to $2.0B revenue hit when compared to Q1 of last year.
I'd still give Tesla a bit of a premium compared with traditional automakers, as their 17% margins are still much better than the Ford/GM 9%-10% margins. But the growth story is done for. Particularly since they just launched Cybertruck, but don't consider that a growth engine.
These are rough numbers, but should be a reasonable guide.
GM trades at a P/E of 6 and Ford trades at a P/E of 15.
This gives Tesla a fair value of $71/share at a PE of 15 and $95/share at PE 20. However, that's before this Q1 revenue decline, which means fair value is probably quite a bit lower. This stock still has a long ways to fall before falling below fair value.
There's a price that the shares will make sense again. But we're not there yet.
PE is a useless metric for this comparison. Ford lost $67k per EV they made in 2023. Tesla had a 17% margin on pure EV sales. Ford, GM, and Stellantis, after going all in on EVs and announcing ambitious plans just a few years ago, have drastically scaled back their EV plans to stop the cash hemorrhaging. Problem there is they are only delaying the pain. The only way to get to profitability on EVs is to rapidly increase scale. But they can’t rapidly increase scale because they have a vast and complex supply chain with little to no interest in EVs and they failed to secure an adequate battery supply to support profitable mass production. So, their solution is to try and convince consumers what they really want and need is a hybrid. I don’t see this strategy working either. They’re basically screwed.
The only way an investment in Ford, GM or Stellantis (or Honda, Toyota, etc.) makes any sense is if you think EVs are going away and aren’t the future. Reduced deliveries and production isn’t good news for Tesla, but this slowdown in Q1 was industry wide and not a Tesla phenom.
Your post also ignores the fact that Tesla is not just a car company. It ignores energy storage YOY growth of 50% and increasing margins and profitability for energy storage. This side of the business will exceed the car business in coming years. It ignores the AI development, computing capabilities (DOJO), and the massive revenue potential of FSD and/or Optimus. It ignores the fact that Tesla has cornered the supercharging market in NA and has secured a high margin and steadily growing subscription based service revenue stream. You also miss that Apple has given up on making EVs or autonomous car software. GM canceled their Blue Cruise program. Only Waymo remains as a competitor. I predict other car companies will soon be licensing Tesla’s FSD software the same way they were forced to latch on to Tesla’s supercharger network after failing to create their own charging networks.
Perhaps most importantly, your reliance on PE, misses the advantage Tesla has in engineering prowess. It is a highly desirable destination for the best engineering talent in the world. At the end of the day it’s the people that make the company. The pace of innovation at Tesla is staggering and Tesla is not stuck in an outdated ICE culture trying to serve two incompatible purposes at once (maintain profitable for now ICE sales AND grow EV business). Not to mention union labor and pension obligations...
Tesla is also expanding into new markets, most recently Malaysia, that can bring in new demand. A deal is nearing completion with India that will provide Tesla access to sell cars with reduced on no import tariffs in exchange for building a gigafactory in India.
Focusing on one quarter of results and PE ratios is a poor way to evaluate the company’s performance IMO. The lost production time at Fremont, Berlin, and Shanghai did affect deliveries. It takes weeks to ship cars by cargo ship, which means cars not produced mid-quarter didn’t make on ships in time for delivery in Q1. There was a story yesterday about thousands of Tesla vehicles parked at the Shanghai dock waiting to be loaded onto ships. This doesn’t account for the entire drop in deliveries, but can account for a significant portion. The remainder is from poor car sales in a slumping Chinese economy that affected all car sales in China (see BYD QOQ numbers in China) and lower than expected car sales for all makes and models in the US. These conditions are not specific to Tesla or EVs, but Tesla faired as good or better than any other EV maker under these macro conditions.
There's plenty of room to criticize PE, or any non-DCF valuation method.
What valuation method to you prefer, and where does that put fair value for the stock in your mind?
Wall Street, supposedly the best minds in the investing world, totally missed on Tesla despite their spreadsheets and complex valuation models. It’s a fool's errand, especially for a retail investor. I make it my business to know every bit of publicly available information about the company and track progress or lack thereof on a daily basis. What I don’t do is treat every quarterly result like it’s life or death. In reality quarterly results have little to no bearing on the company’s long-term prospects. I’ve had the same investment thesis since 2013.
Are EVs, renewable energy and energy storage the future? Is Tesla the leader in EVs and energy storage?
I’ll stay long for as long as the answer to both questions is ‘yes'. Notice this does not include supercharger, service, dojo, FSD or Optimus as growing/potential revenue streams. If I had listened to every expert with a valuation spreadsheet I would have missed out on 20X gains and sold long ago. I’d be willing to look at your non-PE based valuation model for Tesla, since you seem to be into valuations.
In the broadest terms, I have a sense for when the SP is outpacing performance/progress and when the SP is behind performance/progress with respect to the company’s mission and guidance. The last run up was overheated for sure. The stock is currently undervalued now IMO.
That's a fascinating investment methodology.. I take it as sort of similar to investing in Cisco around 1999. They had about $12B in revenue at the time and are now at $57B in revenue. They've grown massively, have been highly innovative over the years, dominate many of the markets they participate in, and locked down market share.
A 9% decline in deliveries for the quarter is a disaster for a company that's still priced like a growth stock. My back-of-the envelope math is that's a $1.5B to $2.0B revenue hit when compared to Q1 of last year.
I'd still give Tesla a bit of a premium compared with traditional automakers, as their 17% margins are still much better than the Ford/GM 9%-10% margins. But the growth story is done for. Particularly since they just launched Cybertruck, but don't consider that a growth engine.
These are rough numbers, but should be a reasonable guide.
GM trades at a P/E of 6 and Ford trades at a P/E of 15.
This gives Tesla a fair value of $71/share at a PE of 15 and $95/share at PE 20. However, that's before this Q1 revenue decline, which means fair value is probably quite a bit lower. This stock still has a long ways to fall before falling below fair value.
There's a price that the shares will make sense again. But we're not there yet.
PE is a useless metric for this comparison. Ford lost $67k per EV they made in 2023. Tesla had a 17% margin on pure EV sales. Ford, GM, and Stellantis, after going all in on EVs and announcing ambitious plans just a few years ago, have drastically scaled back their EV plans to stop the cash hemorrhaging. Problem there is they are only delaying the pain. The only way to get to profitability on EVs is to rapidly increase scale. But they can’t rapidly increase scale because they have a vast and complex supply chain with little to no interest in EVs and they failed to secure an adequate battery supply to support profitable mass production. So, their solution is to try and convince consumers what they really want and need is a hybrid. I don’t see this strategy working either. They’re basically screwed.
The only way an investment in Ford, GM or Stellantis (or Honda, Toyota, etc.) makes any sense is if you think EVs are going away and aren’t the future. Reduced deliveries and production isn’t good news for Tesla, but this slowdown in Q1 was industry wide and not a Tesla phenom.
Your post also ignores the fact that Tesla is not just a car company. It ignores energy storage YOY growth of 50% and increasing margins and profitability for energy storage. This side of the business will exceed the car business in coming years. It ignores the AI development, computing capabilities (DOJO), and the massive revenue potential of FSD and/or Optimus. It ignores the fact that Tesla has cornered the supercharging market in NA and has secured a high margin and steadily growing subscription based service revenue stream. You also miss that Apple has given up on making EVs or autonomous car software. GM canceled their Blue Cruise program. Only Waymo remains as a competitor. I predict other car companies will soon be licensing Tesla’s FSD software the same way they were forced to latch on to Tesla’s supercharger network after failing to create their own charging networks.
Perhaps most importantly, your reliance on PE, misses the advantage Tesla has in engineering prowess. It is a highly desirable destination for the best engineering talent in the world. At the end of the day it’s the people that make the company. The pace of innovation at Tesla is staggering and Tesla is not stuck in an outdated ICE culture trying to serve two incompatible purposes at once (maintain profitable for now ICE sales AND grow EV business). Not to mention union labor and pension obligations...
Tesla is also expanding into new markets, most recently Malaysia, that can bring in new demand. A deal is nearing completion with India that will provide Tesla access to sell cars with reduced on no import tariffs in exchange for building a gigafactory in India.
Focusing on one quarter of results and PE ratios is a poor way to evaluate the company’s performance IMO. The lost production time at Fremont, Berlin, and Shanghai did affect deliveries. It takes weeks to ship cars by cargo ship, which means cars not produced mid-quarter didn’t make on ships in time for delivery in Q1. There was a story yesterday about thousands of Tesla vehicles parked at the Shanghai dock waiting to be loaded onto ships. This doesn’t account for the entire drop in deliveries, but can account for a significant portion. The remainder is from poor car sales in a slumping Chinese economy that affected all car sales in China (see BYD QOQ numbers in China) and lower than expected car sales for all makes and models in the US. These conditions are not specific to Tesla or EVs, but Tesla faired as good or better than any other EV maker under these macro conditions.
There's plenty of room to criticize PE, or any non-DCF valuation method.
What valuation method to you prefer, and where does that put fair value for the stock in your mind?
Wall Street, supposedly the best minds in the investing world, totally missed on Tesla despite their spreadsheets and complex valuation models. It’s a fool's errand, especially for a retail investor. I make it my business to know every bit of publicly available information about the company and track progress or lack thereof on a daily basis. What I don’t do is treat every quarterly result like it’s life or death. In reality quarterly results have little to no bearing on the company’s long-term prospects. I’ve had the same investment thesis since 2013.
Are EVs, renewable energy and energy storage the future? Is Tesla the leader in EVs and energy storage?
I’ll stay long for as long as the answer to both questions is ‘yes'. Notice this does not include supercharger, service, dojo, FSD or Optimus as growing/potential revenue streams. If I had listened to every expert with a valuation spreadsheet I would have missed out on 20X gains and sold long ago. I’d be willing to look at your non-PE based valuation model for Tesla, since you seem to be into valuations.
In the broadest terms, I have a sense for when the SP is outpacing performance/progress and when the SP is behind performance/progress with respect to the company’s mission and guidance. The last run up was overheated for sure. The stock is currently undervalued now IMO.
That's a fascinating investment methodology.. I take it as sort of similar to investing in Cisco around 1999. They had about $12B in revenue at the time and are now at $57B in revenue. They've grown massively, have been highly innovative over the years, dominate many of the markets they participate in, and locked down market share.
So, I take it you’re not going to share your Tesla valuation model that you used to make the decision not to invest in Tesla at this price (or any price)?
A 9% decline in deliveries for the quarter is a disaster for a company that's still priced like a growth stock. My back-of-the envelope math is that's a $1.5B to $2.0B revenue hit when compared to Q1 of last year.
I'd still give Tesla a bit of a premium compared with traditional automakers, as their 17% margins are still much better than the Ford/GM 9%-10% margins. But the growth story is done for. Particularly since they just launched Cybertruck, but don't consider that a growth engine.
These are rough numbers, but should be a reasonable guide.
GM trades at a P/E of 6 and Ford trades at a P/E of 15.
This gives Tesla a fair value of $71/share at a PE of 15 and $95/share at PE 20. However, that's before this Q1 revenue decline, which means fair value is probably quite a bit lower. This stock still has a long ways to fall before falling below fair value.
There's a price that the shares will make sense again. But we're not there yet.
PE is a useless metric for this comparison. Ford lost $67k per EV they made in 2023. Tesla had a 17% margin on pure EV sales. Ford, GM, and Stellantis, after going all in on EVs and announcing ambitious plans just a few years ago, have drastically scaled back their EV plans to stop the cash hemorrhaging. Problem there is they are only delaying the pain. The only way to get to profitability on EVs is to rapidly increase scale. But they can’t rapidly increase scale because they have a vast and complex supply chain with little to no interest in EVs and they failed to secure an adequate battery supply to support profitable mass production. So, their solution is to try and convince consumers what they really want and need is a hybrid. I don’t see this strategy working either. They’re basically screwed.
The only way an investment in Ford, GM or Stellantis (or Honda, Toyota, etc.) makes any sense is if you think EVs are going away and aren’t the future. Reduced deliveries and production isn’t good news for Tesla, but this slowdown in Q1 was industry wide and not a Tesla phenom.
Your post also ignores the fact that Tesla is not just a car company. It ignores energy storage YOY growth of 50% and increasing margins and profitability for energy storage. This side of the business will exceed the car business in coming years. It ignores the AI development, computing capabilities (DOJO), and the massive revenue potential of FSD and/or Optimus. It ignores the fact that Tesla has cornered the supercharging market in NA and has secured a high margin and steadily growing subscription based service revenue stream. You also miss that Apple has given up on making EVs or autonomous car software. GM canceled their Blue Cruise program. Only Waymo remains as a competitor. I predict other car companies will soon be licensing Tesla’s FSD software the same way they were forced to latch on to Tesla’s supercharger network after failing to create their own charging networks.
Perhaps most importantly, your reliance on PE, misses the advantage Tesla has in engineering prowess. It is a highly desirable destination for the best engineering talent in the world. At the end of the day it’s the people that make the company. The pace of innovation at Tesla is staggering and Tesla is not stuck in an outdated ICE culture trying to serve two incompatible purposes at once (maintain profitable for now ICE sales AND grow EV business). Not to mention union labor and pension obligations...
Tesla is also expanding into new markets, most recently Malaysia, that can bring in new demand. A deal is nearing completion with India that will provide Tesla access to sell cars with reduced on no import tariffs in exchange for building a gigafactory in India.
Focusing on one quarter of results and PE ratios is a poor way to evaluate the company’s performance IMO. The lost production time at Fremont, Berlin, and Shanghai did affect deliveries. It takes weeks to ship cars by cargo ship, which means cars not produced mid-quarter didn’t make on ships in time for delivery in Q1. There was a story yesterday about thousands of Tesla vehicles parked at the Shanghai dock waiting to be loaded onto ships. This doesn’t account for the entire drop in deliveries, but can account for a significant portion. The remainder is from poor car sales in a slumping Chinese economy that affected all car sales in China (see BYD QOQ numbers in China) and lower than expected car sales for all makes and models in the US. These conditions are not specific to Tesla or EVs, but Tesla faired as good or better than any other EV maker under these macro conditions.
There's plenty of room to criticize PE, or any non-DCF valuation method.
What valuation method to you prefer, and where does that put fair value for the stock in your mind?
Wall Street, supposedly the best minds in the investing world, totally missed on Tesla despite their spreadsheets and complex valuation models. It’s a fool's errand, especially for a retail investor. I make it my business to know every bit of publicly available information about the company and track progress or lack thereof on a daily basis. What I don’t do is treat every quarterly result like it’s life or death. In reality quarterly results have little to no bearing on the company’s long-term prospects. I’ve had the same investment thesis since 2013.
Are EVs, renewable energy and energy storage the future? Is Tesla the leader in EVs and energy storage?
I’ll stay long for as long as the answer to both questions is ‘yes'. Notice this does not include supercharger, service, dojo, FSD or Optimus as growing/potential revenue streams. If I had listened to every expert with a valuation spreadsheet I would have missed out on 20X gains and sold long ago. I’d be willing to look at your non-PE based valuation model for Tesla, since you seem to be into valuations.
In the broadest terms, I have a sense for when the SP is outpacing performance/progress and when the SP is behind performance/progress with respect to the company’s mission and guidance. The last run up was overheated for sure. The stock is currently undervalued now IMO.
That's a fascinating investment methodology.. I take it as sort of similar to investing in Cisco around 1999. They had about $12B in revenue at the time and are now at $57B in revenue. They've grown massively, have been highly innovative over the years, dominate many of the markets they participate in, and locked down market share.
So, I take it you’re not going to share your Tesla valuation model that you used to make the decision not to invest in Tesla at this price (or any price)?
What I shared above is enough information for me to know I'm not interested in owning shares. I'd consider doing a deeper dive if shares started trading below $90. Although I don't trade individual stocks much anymore anyways.
If I were to do it, I would pro-forma forward earnings for the next year for Tesla and a few competitors. I wouldn't go for the highest-value stock by any means, but the valuation at least has to have a basis in competitive reality. I'd also have to believe the growth story. I personally see a declining sales story for at least a year or two, and a valuation that supports the opposite of that. Maybe you'll prove me wrong, and I hope you do.
You’d be surprised how many people have no idea about Tesla’s range, supercharger network, and lower pricing. New Tesla Model Y for less than $30k after federal tax credit.
I was surprised at your claim of Tesla's lower pricing...I know you're a True Believer, but why that?
Cheapest Model Y:
Rear-Wheel Drive
Your Model Y $46,630
After Federal Tax Credit $39,130
As of this posting, I just went to Tesla.com. The cheapest RWD Tesla Model Y in my area is offered at $39,470. That’s before $12,500 in state and federal EV tax credits, which puts the price at $26,970 before taxes, but also before factoring gas and maintenance savings.
So, no need to ascribe religious “true believer” blind faith to what can be proven with 30 seconds of internet sleuthing and a dedication to understanding ones investments inside and out.
While Tesla spent years developing its highly experimental Cybertruck, a pricey electric pickup, Chinese automakers have raced ahead on affordable EVs, grabbing market share, gaining economies of scale and offering consumers bargain prices that Western automakers are struggling to match.
Musk xeeted that Reuters was "lying (again)" but was not 100% specific what he meant they were lying about. Reuters had cited several anonymous sources inside the company.
The model 2 was supposed to be Tesla's robotaxi platform too, so perhaps some words were taken out of context. Perhaps the design of model 2 must now prioritize the taxi role, or perhaps we won't see a model 2 until FSD is completely developed and approved?
TSLA was still down -3.63% after Musk's denial, on a day when the Nasdaq gained +1.24%. If the model 2 is tied to the eternally frustrating quest to attain FSD, which has seemed just a few years away for the last 10 years, then earnings from such a car won't be appearing anytime soon. Maybe as investors looked into why Tesla would make such a decision, they realized how far Tesla is behind BYD on bringing the cost of EVs down. A $25k Tesla model 2 might not make sense in a world of $18k equivalent BYDs. It might not even make sense in a world with the $26,500 Chevy Bolt.
In any case the 2 has probably been de-prioritized. Tesla's decision to de-prioritize the 2 looks a lot like the legacy automakers' whiplash decisions to pivot toward hybrids after investing tens of billions into BEVs just a couple years before. Whereas the legacies see no reason to make another model 3, Tesla sees no reason to compete on the same field as BYD. If FSD is Tesla's best hope to avoid becoming China's highest-cost auto manufacturer, then it probably makes strategic sense to focus on that rather than the 2.
Yet it leaves consumers in the US with fewer good choices.
Again, what a waste spending years and billions of dollars to develop the niche and probably unprofitable cyberturd. Whose bingo card 12 months ago had Toyota stock up +68% and TSLA down -14%, amid a 138% increase in Prius sales (https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/skyrocketing-toyota-prius-sales-proves-people-want-hybrids-not-evs/ar-BB1kXBOd)? Inflation-squeezed consumers are asking for economical transportation, not what Tesla is selling.
Yeah, color me skeptical. Musk has a history of over promising and under delivering in an attempt to control the narrative.
Sure, it's possible Tesla is close to solving all the technical and regulatory issues around robotaxis and we'll all be blown away 8/8.
More likely is a highly choreographed dog and pony show highlighting the capabilities of the next FSD release and an approximate 2 year time frame to when robotaxis will really be ready for prime time (for realsies this time, we promise!). Oh, and current Tesla owners can FSD right now for the low low price of just $200/month. In other words, more of the same.
Sure, it's possible Tesla is close to solving all the technical and regulatory issues around robotaxis and we'll all be blown away 8/8.
Sure, it's possible Tesla is close to solving all the technical and regulatory issues around robotaxis and we'll all be blown away 8/8.
I don't know about the regulatory side, but Tesla just gave out a free one month trial of the latest version of FSD to a bunch of owners and it is impressive.
Drove me from my parents house in one state to my house in another state across surface streets and highways. The only times I was in control of the car* was backing out of their driveway, pulling into and out of the parking lot of a charging station, and turning into my own driveway.
*Rather than watching and keeping a hand on the wheel to avoid having the video monitoring and wheel resistance safety checks decide I wasn't ready to take over.
Sure, it's possible Tesla is close to solving all the technical and regulatory issues around robotaxis and we'll all be blown away 8/8.
I don't know about the regulatory side, but Tesla just gave out a free one month trial of the latest version of FSD to a bunch of owners and it is impressive.
Drove me from my parents house in one state to my house in another state across surface streets and highways. The only times I was in control of the car* was backing out of their driveway, pulling into and out of the parking lot of a charging station, and turning into my own driveway.
*Rather than watching and keeping a hand on the wheel to avoid having the video monitoring and wheel resistance safety checks decide I wasn't ready to take over.
Musk will use the perceived closeness to completion to pump the stock and sell FSD subscriptions. And in that sense it may actually work for Telsa if it gets a bunch of people to fork over more cash.
Everyone in this industry has learned the problem domain gets exponentially more difficult the closer they get to full automation. The last 1% is more like 50% of the investment, and a lot of this is regulatory. I'm not even sure it's a solvable problem because there are an infinite number of potential edge cases, whereas AI is trained on existing datasets.
I could be wrong about this, and if Tesla surprises everyone with Level-5 autonomous driving* in August please ping this thread and I'll eat some humble pie. In fact, I would be very glad to admit being wrong on this because I would love love love a world of truly autonomous vehicles.
*Like, real level 5, with zero ability for human intervention and Tesla assumes all liability for the actions of its driving system.
Sure, it's possible Tesla is close to solving all the technical and regulatory issues around robotaxis and we'll all be blown away 8/8.
I don't know about the regulatory side, but Tesla just gave out a free one month trial of the latest version of FSD to a bunch of owners and it is impressive.
Drove me from my parents house in one state to my house in another state across surface streets and highways. The only times I was in control of the car* was backing out of their driveway, pulling into and out of the parking lot of a charging station, and turning into my own driveway.
*Rather than watching and keeping a hand on the wheel to avoid having the video monitoring and wheel resistance safety checks decide I wasn't ready to take over.
Musk will use the perceived closeness to completion to pump the stock and sell FSD subscriptions. And in that sense it may actually work for Telsa if it gets a bunch of people to fork over more cash.
Everyone in this industry has learned the problem domain gets exponentially more difficult the closer they get to full automation. The last 1% is more like 50% of the investment, and a lot of this is regulatory. I'm not even sure it's a solvable problem because there are an infinite number of potential edge cases, whereas AI is trained on existing datasets.
I could be wrong about this, and if Tesla surprises everyone with Level-5 autonomous driving* in August please ping this thread and I'll eat some humble pie. In fact, I would be very glad to admit being wrong on this because I would love love love a world of truly autonomous vehicles.
*Like, real level 5, with zero ability for human intervention and Tesla assumes all liability for the actions of its driving system.
FINRate, have you been a “driver” or passenger in a Tesla operating under Tesla’s latest version of FSD (12.3.3)? Maizefolk and I have both shared our firsthand experiences with this new version in recent days, which is based on a new approach (vision + neural net) instead of lines of code. This approach has led to rapid progress and iterative improvements and fewer disengagements. I’ve never been one to say Tesla was “close” to solving FSD before. I still wouldn’t hazard a guess on time until an actual robotaxi operating on our streets, but for the first time ever I’m convinced Tesla will get there and its possible in the not too distant future.
I agree with you in that I'm absolutely sure this month's free trial is an attempt to sell a bunch more FSD subscriptions. My guess is that it will probably work, although not for me. $200/month is a bit too steep for a "wow that's cool!" feature which still (legally and because Tesla's built in safety checks) requires me to pay just as much attention as I would driving myself. ...I might pay it for a level 4 system though.
I would also be shocked if Tesla was able to pull a level 5 system out of their hats in August. But I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility they could at least announce the regulatory approvals they'd need to match Waymo's current self driving taxi deployments (which probably qualify as a level 4 technology). Was in SF a couple of weeks ago and it was wild seeing those cars driving around with people in the passenger seat but no driver.
It'll be harder for Tesla to do the same thing as Waymo without LIDAR from a technology standpoint, but Waymo shows it isn't necessarily impossible from a regulatory standpoint.
Tesla just settled out of court in the case where autopilot killed Walter Huang. I wonder if this will send a message to all the other lawsuits against Tesla autopilot caused accidents that the company is willing to settle.
"We will never surrender/settle an unjust case against us, even if we will probably lose." - Elon Musk, 2022
Tesla just settled out of court in the case where autopilot killed Walter Huang. I wonder if this will send a message to all the other lawsuits against Tesla autopilot caused accidents that the company is willing to settle.
"We will never surrender/settle an unjust case against us, even if we will probably lose." - Elon Musk, 2022
Well, it could've been a just case.
The full quote, from a 2021 tweet, is: “Tesla policy is never to give in to false claims, even if we would lose, and never to fight true claims, even if we would win.”
So a settlement firmly...muddles that position?
The full quote, from a 2021 tweet, is: “Tesla policy is never to give in to false claims, even if we would lose, and never to fight true claims, even if we would win.”
So a settlement firmly...muddles that position?
My commitment:- https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433)
- We will never seek victory in a just case against us, even if we will probably win.
- We will never surrender/settle an unjust case against us, even if we will probably lose.
The full quote, from a 2021 tweet, is: “Tesla policy is never to give in to false claims, even if we would lose, and never to fight true claims, even if we would win.”
So a settlement firmly...muddles that position?
He might have made a similar but different claim in the past? The 2022 one I was referencing:QuoteMy commitment:- https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433)
- We will never seek victory in a just case against us, even if we will probably win.
- We will never surrender/settle an unjust case against us, even if we will probably lose.
We don’t know the terms of the settlement, but if Tesla admits no fault then I don’t see how that violates the above quote. Without admitting fault it becomes a financial decision and a decision on how best to spend precious time and energy for both sides.
The full quote, from a 2021 tweet, is: “Tesla policy is never to give in to false claims, even if we would lose, and never to fight true claims, even if we would win.”
So a settlement firmly...muddles that position?
He might have made a similar but different claim in the past? The 2022 one I was referencing:QuoteMy commitment:- https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433)
- We will never seek victory in a just case against us, even if we will probably win.
- We will never surrender/settle an unjust case against us, even if we will probably lose.
Huang’s hands were not on the wheel in the 6 seconds prior to the crash. Huang made no attempt to brake or steer the vehicle immediately before the crash. Tesla policy since the beginning of FSD has required the Driver to keep hands on the wheel at ALL times. Hard to blame Tesla when Huang clearly was violating FSD terms of use and was clearly distracted at the time of the accident.
Also contributing to his death, the concrete divider’s protective barrier had been crushed by a previous accident (presumably not a Tesla) and had not been replaced. Huang likely walks away or at least survives it the protection is in place.
We don’t know the terms of the settlement, but if Tesla admits no fault then I don’t see how that violates the above quote. Without admitting fault it becomes a financial decision and a decision on how best to spend precious time and energy for both sides.
Cars are deadly in the hands of anyone who misuses them or drives distracted. I can set my cruise control and try to text someone. If I crash into the car in front of me that’s not the car’s fault. It’s my responsibility to keep my eyes on the road and disengage cruise if needed.
FSD has driven over a billion miles and the crash rate for Tesla vehicles operating under FSD is way below the national average for accidents per miles driven. FSD is saving lives.
The full quote, from a 2021 tweet, is: “Tesla policy is never to give in to false claims, even if we would lose, and never to fight true claims, even if we would win.”
So a settlement firmly...muddles that position?
He might have made a similar but different claim in the past? The 2022 one I was referencing:QuoteMy commitment:- https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433)
- We will never seek victory in a just case against us, even if we will probably win.
- We will never surrender/settle an unjust case against us, even if we will probably lose.
Huang’s hands were not on the wheel in the 6 seconds prior to the crash. Huang made no attempt to brake or steer the vehicle immediately before the crash. Tesla policy since the beginning of FSD has required the Driver to keep hands on the wheel at ALL times. Hard to blame Tesla when Huang clearly was violating FSD terms of use and was clearly distracted at the time of the accident.
... by less aggressively over-promising technologies that aren't yet matureSeems like other manufacturers with similar driving aids have figured out ways to avoid misuse like this.The full quote, from a 2021 tweet, is: “Tesla policy is never to give in to false claims, even if we would lose, and never to fight true claims, even if we would win.”He might have made a similar but different claim in the past? The 2022 one I was referencing:
So a settlement firmly...muddles that position?QuoteMy commitment:- https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433)
- We will never seek victory in a just case against us, even if we will probably win.
- We will never surrender/settle an unjust case against us, even if we will probably lose.
Huang’s hands were not on the wheel in the 6 seconds prior to the crash. Huang made no attempt to brake or steer the vehicle immediately before the crash. Tesla policy since the beginning of FSD has required the Driver to keep hands on the wheel at ALL times. Hard to blame Tesla when Huang clearly was violating FSD terms of use and was clearly distracted at the time of the accident.
... by less aggressively over-promising technologies that aren't yet matureSeems like other manufacturers with similar driving aids have figured out ways to avoid misuse like this.The full quote, from a 2021 tweet, is: “Tesla policy is never to give in to false claims, even if we would lose, and never to fight true claims, even if we would win.”He might have made a similar but different claim in the past? The 2022 one I was referencing:
So a settlement firmly...muddles that position?QuoteMy commitment:- https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433)
- We will never seek victory in a just case against us, even if we will probably win.
- We will never surrender/settle an unjust case against us, even if we will probably lose.
Huang’s hands were not on the wheel in the 6 seconds prior to the crash. Huang made no attempt to brake or steer the vehicle immediately before the crash. Tesla policy since the beginning of FSD has required the Driver to keep hands on the wheel at ALL times. Hard to blame Tesla when Huang clearly was violating FSD terms of use and was clearly distracted at the time of the accident.
Tesla has published disclaimers including one observed June 28,2022, stating in part: "The currently
enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous."
However, the disclaimer contradicts the original untrue or misleading labels and claims, which
is misleading, and does not cure the violation.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:- https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.408922/gov.uscourts.cand.408922.1.0.pdf (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.408922/gov.uscourts.cand.408922.1.0.pdf)
(i) Defendants had significantly overstated the efficacy, viability, and safety of the Company's Autopilot and FSD technologies;
(ii) contrary to Defendants' representations, Tesla's Autopilot and FSD technologies created a serious risk of accident and injury associated with the operation of Tesla vehicles;
See also: https://x.com/garageklub/status/1779571445930324456 (video of flimsy pedal covers)
Tesla just laid off 10% of its global workforce.
Everyone was expecting rough Q1 financials, and such cuts are often done as a sacrifice to appease stockholders. Yet interesting that the stock has declined on the news. Maybe it will recover once the market digests the news and looks to higher profits. On the other hand, maybe this move contradicts the growth narrative.
Cruise control is control of the speed that the vehicle cruises along at. There is no confusion there.In some places they are now calling it "Full Self-Driving (Supervised)".
Tesla calls their feature "Full Self Driving". That's purposely misleading. If it doesn't do full self driving, then that name should certainly be changed to something that describes what it does. In this case, a more apt name would be "Unpredictable machine driving that requires constant user monitoring to avoid crash".
Can someone explain to me the benefit of having a vehicle drive itself around if you have to:
I think a lot of the benefit comes from realizing I (and I'm guessing most humans) are not a perfectly attentive driver all the time. On long highway drives my attention can wander and having a second set of silicon eyes makes me feel safer.
In addition when navigating to strange locations, I can focus just on whether the car is driving safely without trying to multitask worrying "Did I just miss my turn? Or when the maps app said turn right in 500 feet does that mean the next one?"
Lost in the layoff story is the departure of two more executives. The loss of Baglino is particularly concerning. Unclear if he left of his own or was asked to leave.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/15/tesla-execs-drew-baglino-and-rohan-patel-depart-amid-steep-layoffs.html
I think it has been a toxic place for a while now. Layoffs will make morale worse.Lost in the layoff story is the departure of two more executives. The loss of Baglino is particularly concerning. Unclear if he left of his own or was asked to leave.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/15/tesla-execs-drew-baglino-and-rohan-patel-depart-amid-steep-layoffs.html
Has clearly become just as toxic a place to work as anywhere. It's well known that TSLA underpay their engineers compared to big Tech, while expecting more of them.
I think it has been a toxic place for a while now. Layoffs will make morale worse.I recommend the Elon biography by Isaacson. It's a good read. Musk is incredibly demanding, impulsive, unpredictable and unfair. A flawed genius, no doubt.
I was interviewed for a role at Tesla a while back. Person interviewing me was doing similar as what I do but at Tesla and wanted to hire someone to help him. The guy was asking me how my work is done in a large organization like where I was at. I explained to him and mentioned we have a team employees working together to accomplish our work. He was clearly frustrated to hear that. It seemed to me he alone was to do entire teams worth of work, seemed overworked and exploited at Tesla..
I don't do very well with toxic bosses or environments. I knew right away that role was not for me
Seems like the people willing to sacrifice years of their early lives on the alter of work might be better off as entrepreneurs.I think it has been a toxic place for a while now. Layoffs will make morale worse.I recommend the Elon biography by Isaacson. It's a good read. Musk is incredibly demanding, impulsive, unpredictable and unfair. A flawed genius, no doubt.
I was interviewed for a role at Tesla a while back. Person interviewing me was doing similar as what I do but at Tesla and wanted to hire someone to help him. The guy was asking me how my work is done in a large organization like where I was at. I explained to him and mentioned we have a team employees working together to accomplish our work. He was clearly frustrated to hear that. It seemed to me he alone was to do entire teams worth of work, seemed overworked and exploited at Tesla..
I don't do very well with toxic bosses or environments. I knew right away that role was not for me
Working at Tesla doesn't sound all that far off from my own experience when I first came to the USA. It was great for a young, single, hungry engineer, willing to put work first and go where they sent me at a moment's notice. Tesla could be like that, only with far better tech. It would be great experience. Yes, you might get fired so save like a fiend, which won't be too difficult because you'll have no time to spend money anyway.
I wouldn't do it now. I would advise my kid to try it, or Space X preferably.
I can relate to that as well. I am still young I think. But used to be younger, single, hungry. Eager to take on every challenge and work 24/7. It was fun and exhilarating for a while, no question..Seems like the people willing to sacrifice years of their early lives on the alter of work might be better off as entrepreneurs.I think it has been a toxic place for a while now. Layoffs will make morale worse.I recommend the Elon biography by Isaacson. It's a good read. Musk is incredibly demanding, impulsive, unpredictable and unfair. A flawed genius, no doubt.
I was interviewed for a role at Tesla a while back. Person interviewing me was doing similar as what I do but at Tesla and wanted to hire someone to help him. The guy was asking me how my work is done in a large organization like where I was at. I explained to him and mentioned we have a team employees working together to accomplish our work. He was clearly frustrated to hear that. It seemed to me he alone was to do entire teams worth of work, seemed overworked and exploited at Tesla..
I don't do very well with toxic bosses or environments. I knew right away that role was not for me
Working at Tesla doesn't sound all that far off from my own experience when I first came to the USA. It was great for a young, single, hungry engineer, willing to put work first and go where they sent me at a moment's notice. Tesla could be like that, only with far better tech. It would be great experience. Yes, you might get fired so save like a fiend, which won't be too difficult because you'll have no time to spend money anyway.
I wouldn't do it now. I would advise my kid to try it, or Space X preferably.
The people getting shitcanned at Tesla are left with nothing. The people keeping their jobs - also get no significant equity in a business. Entrepreneurs at least have a chance of owning a growing business, and the ones who fail are often no worse off than the laid-off employee workaholics.
Seems like the people willing to sacrifice years of their early lives on the alter of work might be better off as entrepreneurs.I think it has been a toxic place for a while now. Layoffs will make morale worse.I recommend the Elon biography by Isaacson. It's a good read. Musk is incredibly demanding, impulsive, unpredictable and unfair. A flawed genius, no doubt.
I was interviewed for a role at Tesla a while back. Person interviewing me was doing similar as what I do but at Tesla and wanted to hire someone to help him. The guy was asking me how my work is done in a large organization like where I was at. I explained to him and mentioned we have a team employees working together to accomplish our work. He was clearly frustrated to hear that. It seemed to me he alone was to do entire teams worth of work, seemed overworked and exploited at Tesla..
I don't do very well with toxic bosses or environments. I knew right away that role was not for me
Working at Tesla doesn't sound all that far off from my own experience when I first came to the USA. It was great for a young, single, hungry engineer, willing to put work first and go where they sent me at a moment's notice. Tesla could be like that, only with far better tech. It would be great experience. Yes, you might get fired so save like a fiend, which won't be too difficult because you'll have no time to spend money anyway.
I wouldn't do it now. I would advise my kid to try it, or Space X preferably.
The people getting shitcanned at Tesla are left with nothing. The people keeping their jobs - also get no significant equity in a business. Entrepreneurs at least have a chance of owning a growing business, and the ones who fail are often no worse off than the laid-off employee workaholics.
Seems like the people willing to sacrifice years of their early lives on the alter of work might be better off as entrepreneurs.I think it has been a toxic place for a while now. Layoffs will make morale worse.I recommend the Elon biography by Isaacson. It's a good read. Musk is incredibly demanding, impulsive, unpredictable and unfair. A flawed genius, no doubt.
I was interviewed for a role at Tesla a while back. Person interviewing me was doing similar as what I do but at Tesla and wanted to hire someone to help him. The guy was asking me how my work is done in a large organization like where I was at. I explained to him and mentioned we have a team employees working together to accomplish our work. He was clearly frustrated to hear that. It seemed to me he alone was to do entire teams worth of work, seemed overworked and exploited at Tesla..
I don't do very well with toxic bosses or environments. I knew right away that role was not for me
Working at Tesla doesn't sound all that far off from my own experience when I first came to the USA. It was great for a young, single, hungry engineer, willing to put work first and go where they sent me at a moment's notice. Tesla could be like that, only with far better tech. It would be great experience. Yes, you might get fired so save like a fiend, which won't be too difficult because you'll have no time to spend money anyway.
I wouldn't do it now. I would advise my kid to try it, or Space X preferably.
The people getting shitcanned at Tesla are left with nothing. The people keeping their jobs - also get no significant equity in a business. Entrepreneurs at least have a chance of owning a growing business, and the ones who fail are often no worse off than the laid-off employee workaholics.
But what about that Tesla? $148 premarket. Getting interesting again.
I would bet he's been playing with his Twitter rather than working on the vision.But what about that Tesla? $148 premarket. Getting interesting again.
Is it? Maybe if one is only looking at price. But margins and revenue have declined as well. As of today, FPE is remains at around 50. It seems likely that the Model 2 has been cancelled/de-prioritized, which was the main thesis for growth justifying a sky high multiple relative to other automakers.
The latest FSD is good, but nowhere near fully autonomous. Waymo is already doing a real robotaxi service that is expanding to some other cities. The problems they've encountered along the way are things Tesla will also need to sort out, assuming they get there at some point. Tesla is also pretty far behind in robotics, e.g. it doesn't compare favorably to Boston Dynamics. Solar and energy storage are decent businesses, but these are under pressure at the moment.
As discussed on this thread previously, Gigacasting and a highly automated and vertically integrated production line was supposed to significantly drive down costs. Which would enable Tesla to undercut the competition while maintaining margins. That's a growth story. Cybertruck is a huge distraction from this, and it's doubling down on the early days of niche vehicles for a small number of wealthy buyers... no way this is going to scale. And then canceling the Model 2 in favor of robotaxis continues this trend. It doesn't make sense.
Perhaps the earnings call next Tues will clear everything up and Musk will lay out a solid vision for the future. If he does the stock price should stabilized or even get a nice bump. But if he doesn't it's going to be a bloodbath.
Tesla's Q1 report is out:
https://digitalassets.tesla.com/tesla-contents/image/upload/IR/TSLA-Q1-2024-Update.pdf (https://digitalassets.tesla.com/tesla-contents/image/upload/IR/TSLA-Q1-2024-Update.pdf)
Highlights (lowlights?):Yet TSLA stock rose 1.85% on the news, to a PE ratio of 33.57, reportedly because the report mentioned the launch of "new models ahead of our previously communicated start of production in the second half of 2025".
- -13% YoY automotive revenue
- -9% YoY total revenue
- +37% YoY expenses
- -18% YoY profit
- -55% YoY net income for shareholders
- -90% YoY operating cash flow
- -674% YoY free cash flow (not a typo)
- -2% YoY total vehicle production
- -9% YoY total vehicle deliveries
- +87% YoY inventory growth
- YoY R&D spending as % of revenues increased from 3.3% to 5.4%
- YoY SG&A spending as % of revenues increased from 4.6% to 6.45%
- YoY Debt/Assets decreased from 43.3% to 40.3%.
- YoY Current Ratio increased from 1.57 to 1.72
Tesla continued: "These new vehicles, including more affordable models, will utilize aspects of the next generation platform as well as aspects of our current platforms, and will be able to be produced on the same manufacturing lines as our current vehicle line-up. This update may result in achieving less cost reduction than previously expected but enables us to prudently grow our vehicle volumes in a more capex efficient manner during uncertain times."
So maybe expect what is basically a cheaper Model 3 rather than a completely new platform. And it'll be out within 12 months if you'll believe that. And it hasn't been designed yet.
Tesla's Q1 report is out:
https://digitalassets.tesla.com/tesla-contents/image/upload/IR/TSLA-Q1-2024-Update.pdf (https://digitalassets.tesla.com/tesla-contents/image/upload/IR/TSLA-Q1-2024-Update.pdf)
Highlights (lowlights?):Yet TSLA stock rose 1.85% on the news, to a PE ratio of 33.57, reportedly because the report mentioned the launch of "new models ahead of our previously communicated start of production in the second half of 2025".
- -13% YoY automotive revenue
- -9% YoY total revenue
- +37% YoY expenses
- -18% YoY profit
- -55% YoY net income for shareholders
- -90% YoY operating cash flow
- -674% YoY free cash flow (not a typo)
- -2% YoY total vehicle production
- -9% YoY total vehicle deliveries
- +87% YoY inventory growth
- YoY R&D spending as % of revenues increased from 3.3% to 5.4%
- YoY SG&A spending as % of revenues increased from 4.6% to 6.45%
- YoY Debt/Assets decreased from 43.3% to 40.3%.
- YoY Current Ratio increased from 1.57 to 1.72
Tesla continued: "These new vehicles, including more affordable models, will utilize aspects of the next generation platform as well as aspects of our current platforms, and will be able to be produced on the same manufacturing lines as our current vehicle line-up. This update may result in achieving less cost reduction than previously expected but enables us to prudently grow our vehicle volumes in a more capex efficient manner during uncertain times."
So maybe expect what is basically a cheaper Model 3 rather than a completely new platform. And it'll be out within 12 months if you'll believe that. And it hasn't been designed yet.
at close - currently it is up another 10% post market.
more on their new, cheaper products:
more on their new, cheaper products:
I like that it's more practical and understated than the cybertruck.
more on their new, cheaper products:
I like that it's more practical and understated than the cybertruck.
And mass transit is better for the environment.
Since this thread is full of people that follow Tesla more closely than I do, I'm curious what you guys think about the recent Supercharger group layoffs? Musk tweeted (X'd?) that the network would continue to grow more slowly but the focus is shifting from growth to reliability/uptime. On the surface, this seems like an odd time to dismiss a big chunk of talent in this part of the organization.
Since this thread is full of people that follow Tesla more closely than I do, I'm curious what you guys think about the recent Supercharger group layoffs? Musk tweeted (X'd?) that the network would continue to grow more slowly but the focus is shifting from growth to reliability/uptime. On the surface, this seems like an odd time to dismiss a big chunk of talent in this part of the organization.
I agree @FINate this will be used as a textbook illustration of how one can win the technology innovation game, the VC game, the manufacturing operations game, the free marketing game, and also somehow find a path to profitability - and yet still destroy a company with bad governance and dictatorial decision-making.Since this thread is full of people that follow Tesla more closely than I do, I'm curious what you guys think about the recent Supercharger group layoffs? Musk tweeted (X'd?) that the network would continue to grow more slowly but the focus is shifting from growth to reliability/uptime. On the surface, this seems like an odd time to dismiss a big chunk of talent in this part of the organization.
I'm kinda waiting to see what actually comes of this over the next few weeks. Since Tesla has no press/PR dept. it's difficult to know what's going on other than rumors and reading between the lines of Musk's Tweets. That said, I seems likely that Tesla (Musk really, same thing) is betting the entire company on AI and robotics. Which is a head scratcher for sure. I mean, they have/had a winning formula and did what many thought impossible by creating the EV market. They just needed to keep iterating and improving...
This, along with other recent moves, makes it abundantly clear that Musk is not interested in running an established business. He's chasing the next shiny thing, what he thinks can create 10x, 100x, 1000x the value. He's chasing $5000 stock prices. I don't think this is going to end well, which is frustrating and painful to watch.
Business schools will be talking about Tesla for decades, the company that threw it all away to chase trends. The real lesson learned will be the importance of corporate governance. A thoroughly boring subject that doesn't seem important until it is. What Musk likely views as strength -- having the board in his pocket and essential control of the company -- is actually a huge weakness. He has no accountability and is at least 2 years past expiry. An independent board would have booted him a long time ago. But instead he has free reign to sacrifice the company at the alter of his ego. This is the future for the company unless enough shareholders force change.
The now-7-year-old model 3 is not that product, with ownership costs similar to a BMW or Mercedes. Tesla's growth is getting absolutely murdered by a market full of $30k hybrids and even some $35k EVs like the Hyundai Kona, Hyundai Ioniq, Chevy Bolt, Chevy Equinox, Fiat 500e, etc.Best-Selling Cars Of 2024
Since this thread is full of people that follow Tesla more closely than I do, I'm curious what you guys think about the recent Supercharger group layoffs? Musk tweeted (X'd?) that the network would continue to grow more slowly but the focus is shifting from growth to reliability/uptime. On the surface, this seems like an odd time to dismiss a big chunk of talent in this part of the organization.It is a non-story in my view.
The now-7-year-old model 3 is not that product, with ownership costs similar to a BMW or Mercedes. Tesla's growth is getting absolutely murdered by a market full of $30k hybrids and even some $35k EVs like the Hyundai Kona, Hyundai Ioniq, Chevy Bolt, Chevy Equinox, Fiat 500e, etc.Best-Selling Cars Of 2024
1. Ford F-Series - 152,943 Units.
2. Chevrolet Silverado - 127,563 Units.
3. Toyota RAV4 - 124,822 Units.
4. Tesla Model Y - 109,000 Units (Est.)
5. Honda CR-V - 95,038 Units.
6. Nissan Rogue - 90,804 Units.
7. Ram Pickup - 89,417 Units.
8. Toyota Camry - 78,337 Units.
17. Tesla Model 3 - 42,000 Units (Est.)
If Tesla's growth is absolutely gettting murdered, why are these hybrids and other EVs you mention not in the Car and Driver top 25 of best selling cars of 2024(so far) list?
What consequences to a small dip in demand should we be expecting?The now-7-year-old model 3 is not that product, with ownership costs similar to a BMW or Mercedes. Tesla's growth is getting absolutely murdered by a market full of $30k hybrids and even some $35k EVs like the Hyundai Kona, Hyundai Ioniq, Chevy Bolt, Chevy Equinox, Fiat 500e, etc.Best-Selling Cars Of 2024
1. Ford F-Series - 152,943 Units.
2. Chevrolet Silverado - 127,563 Units.
3. Toyota RAV4 - 124,822 Units.
4. Tesla Model Y - 109,000 Units (Est.)
5. Honda CR-V - 95,038 Units.
6. Nissan Rogue - 90,804 Units.
7. Ram Pickup - 89,417 Units.
8. Toyota Camry - 78,337 Units.
17. Tesla Model 3 - 42,000 Units (Est.)
If Tesla's growth is absolutely gettting murdered, why are these hybrids and other EVs you mention not in the Car and Driver top 25 of best selling cars of 2024(so far) list?
Tesla is essentially a 2-vehicle company. The S, X, and CT are niche vehicles, and the vast majority of Tesla shoppers choose between the 3 and Y. Legacy companies utilize a different strategy making many different vehicles for numerous market segments. E.g. Ford has the F-Series (which is really a family of various vehicles, which is why it tops such lists), the Ranger (mid-size pickup) and the Maverick (compact pickup). The legacy makers are competing to sell the most vehicles total.
Looking at the number of vehicles sold by brand makes this all very clear: https://www.statista.com/statistics/264362/leading-car-brands-in-the-us-based-on-vehicle-sales/
Tesla is still a relatively small car company despite having some of the best selling models. But because it's not diversified across many models even small dips in demand for the 3 and Y have major consequences for the company.
What consequences to a small dip in demand should we be expecting?The now-7-year-old model 3 is not that product, with ownership costs similar to a BMW or Mercedes. Tesla's growth is getting absolutely murdered by a market full of $30k hybrids and even some $35k EVs like the Hyundai Kona, Hyundai Ioniq, Chevy Bolt, Chevy Equinox, Fiat 500e, etc.Best-Selling Cars Of 2024
1. Ford F-Series - 152,943 Units.
2. Chevrolet Silverado - 127,563 Units.
3. Toyota RAV4 - 124,822 Units.
4. Tesla Model Y - 109,000 Units (Est.)
5. Honda CR-V - 95,038 Units.
6. Nissan Rogue - 90,804 Units.
7. Ram Pickup - 89,417 Units.
8. Toyota Camry - 78,337 Units.
17. Tesla Model 3 - 42,000 Units (Est.)
If Tesla's growth is absolutely gettting murdered, why are these hybrids and other EVs you mention not in the Car and Driver top 25 of best selling cars of 2024(so far) list?
Tesla is essentially a 2-vehicle company. The S, X, and CT are niche vehicles, and the vast majority of Tesla shoppers choose between the 3 and Y. Legacy companies utilize a different strategy making many different vehicles for numerous market segments. E.g. Ford has the F-Series (which is really a family of various vehicles, which is why it tops such lists), the Ranger (mid-size pickup) and the Maverick (compact pickup). The legacy makers are competing to sell the most vehicles total.
Looking at the number of vehicles sold by brand makes this all very clear: https://www.statista.com/statistics/264362/leading-car-brands-in-the-us-based-on-vehicle-sales/
Tesla is still a relatively small car company despite having some of the best selling models. But because it's not diversified across many models even small dips in demand for the 3 and Y have major consequences for the company.
What consequences to a small dip in demand should we be expecting?The now-7-year-old model 3 is not that product, with ownership costs similar to a BMW or Mercedes. Tesla's growth is getting absolutely murdered by a market full of $30k hybrids and even some $35k EVs like the Hyundai Kona, Hyundai Ioniq, Chevy Bolt, Chevy Equinox, Fiat 500e, etc.Best-Selling Cars Of 2024
1. Ford F-Series - 152,943 Units.
2. Chevrolet Silverado - 127,563 Units.
3. Toyota RAV4 - 124,822 Units.
4. Tesla Model Y - 109,000 Units (Est.)
5. Honda CR-V - 95,038 Units.
6. Nissan Rogue - 90,804 Units.
7. Ram Pickup - 89,417 Units.
8. Toyota Camry - 78,337 Units.
17. Tesla Model 3 - 42,000 Units (Est.)
If Tesla's growth is absolutely gettting murdered, why are these hybrids and other EVs you mention not in the Car and Driver top 25 of best selling cars of 2024(so far) list?
Tesla is essentially a 2-vehicle company. The S, X, and CT are niche vehicles, and the vast majority of Tesla shoppers choose between the 3 and Y. Legacy companies utilize a different strategy making many different vehicles for numerous market segments. E.g. Ford has the F-Series (which is really a family of various vehicles, which is why it tops such lists), the Ranger (mid-size pickup) and the Maverick (compact pickup). The legacy makers are competing to sell the most vehicles total.
Looking at the number of vehicles sold by brand makes this all very clear: https://www.statista.com/statistics/264362/leading-car-brands-in-the-us-based-on-vehicle-sales/
Tesla is still a relatively small car company despite having some of the best selling models. But because it's not diversified across many models even small dips in demand for the 3 and Y have major consequences for the company.
As seen on April 23.
Good points @FINate .What consequences to a small dip in demand should we be expecting?The now-7-year-old model 3 is not that product, with ownership costs similar to a BMW or Mercedes. Tesla's growth is getting absolutely murdered by a market full of $30k hybrids and even some $35k EVs like the Hyundai Kona, Hyundai Ioniq, Chevy Bolt, Chevy Equinox, Fiat 500e, etc.Best-Selling Cars Of 2024
1. Ford F-Series - 152,943 Units.
2. Chevrolet Silverado - 127,563 Units.
3. Toyota RAV4 - 124,822 Units.
4. Tesla Model Y - 109,000 Units (Est.)
5. Honda CR-V - 95,038 Units.
6. Nissan Rogue - 90,804 Units.
7. Ram Pickup - 89,417 Units.
8. Toyota Camry - 78,337 Units.
17. Tesla Model 3 - 42,000 Units (Est.)
If Tesla's growth is absolutely gettting murdered, why are these hybrids and other EVs you mention not in the Car and Driver top 25 of best selling cars of 2024(so far) list?
Tesla is essentially a 2-vehicle company. The S, X, and CT are niche vehicles, and the vast majority of Tesla shoppers choose between the 3 and Y. Legacy companies utilize a different strategy making many different vehicles for numerous market segments. E.g. Ford has the F-Series (which is really a family of various vehicles, which is why it tops such lists), the Ranger (mid-size pickup) and the Maverick (compact pickup). The legacy makers are competing to sell the most vehicles total.
Looking at the number of vehicles sold by brand makes this all very clear: https://www.statista.com/statistics/264362/leading-car-brands-in-the-us-based-on-vehicle-sales/
Tesla is still a relatively small car company despite having some of the best selling models. But because it's not diversified across many models even small dips in demand for the 3 and Y have major consequences for the company.
As seen on April 23.
Exactly. It's fascinating that many Tesla fans don't see it.
One of the things I love about long running threads is going back to see how the conversation evolved.
Remember when Tesla was the only game in town? They were going to crush the legacy companies. It was winner-takes-all. Conventional wisdom was that Tesla had such a commanding technological lead that the competition would never catch up.
Well, they caught up. Turns out it's not that difficult, relatively speaking, to design and build an EV. Even lumbering Ford surprised everyone with the Mach E... don't get me wrong, it has lots of problems, but really good for a first iteration. Kia and Hyundai are really nailing it, but many other legacy brands are producing really solid options. Tesla is no longer the only game in town.
Cybertruck was supposed to crush the ICE pickup market. In reality it has crushed no one, except possibly Tesla. It's a decent vehicle (other than having an unnecessarily difficult manufacturing process due to its design) and probably okay off-road with the recent OTA update. But it's highly niche and zero threat to the pickup market. The F-150 Lightning is fine for being the first full-sized EV pickup to market, and the R1T is big with the outdoorsy set, but the real winner here will be the Silverado EV.
Then the Model 2 with Gigacasting was going to greatly reduce COGS and undercut the competition while maintaining high margins. As far as anyone can tell, M2 is effectively dead and Tesla has also given up on Gigacasting the entire underbody. My guess is that, as predicted, they had difficulty controlling the flow and temperature of metal in such large castings and the inability to correct minor imperfections resulted in a very high reject rate.
We can't forget what has often been called Tesla's greatest asset: the Supercharging network. Even if the cars had some QC issues and one found the CEO repugnant, these were overcome by their network. Now that Elon has laid off the entire Supercharging team and non-Tesla's have access to the network this is no longer the selling point it once was.
It's worth noting that all the arguments for investing in Tesla have centered on their ability to win in the automotive space. Yet now Elon has made it very clear, in word and deed, that Tesla is an AI and robotics company. So investors need to evaluate the company as such. What's the thesis for Tesla to win the AI and robotics race? And is this market large enough to support a much higher valuation?
Here's a story about how the Supercharger layoffs are already having an impact:Sounds almost Twitter-like.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/3/24147402/tesla-supercharger-layoffs-stalled-ev-infrastructure-projects
Tesla is pulling back on plans to install Superchargers all over the country. Property owners who were in the middle of getting chargers installed, with contracts already signed, have been left hanging because their contacts at Tesla were fired. They can't get in touch with anyone and e-mails to support addresses are bouncing back unanswered.
Here's a story about how the Supercharger layoffs are already having an impact:Sounds almost Twitter-like.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/3/24147402/tesla-supercharger-layoffs-stalled-ev-infrastructure-projects
Tesla is pulling back on plans to install Superchargers all over the country. Property owners who were in the middle of getting chargers installed, with contracts already signed, have been left hanging because their contacts at Tesla were fired. They can't get in touch with anyone and e-mails to support addresses are bouncing back unanswered.
Service your customers or someone else will.
This has the feeling of a Stalinesque purge -- Musk getting rid of everyone who may be a threat to his position while also ensuring senior executives with lots of voting shares dump their holdings. These shares will perhaps be bought by the faithful, which may help Musk in his efforts to relocate the company and negotiate his pay package.
... the above is the most charitable interpretation I can come up with. Because the types of moves Musk is making are typical of companies in extreme crisis, i.e. in immediate danger of running out of capital. If this is the case then there's been extensive "creative" accounting, which would mean a rapid collapse and criminal charges. This would be terrible for the EV industry, so I find myself hoping that this is merely a case of Musk being a petty power hungry narcissist.
I understand that this period of change may be challenging and that patience is not easy when expecting to be paid... [...] If currently working on an active Supercharging construction site, please continue. [...] Additionally, hold on working on any new material orders. [...] If waiting on delayed payment, please contact [email redacted] for a status update.(bolded)
maizefolk's explanation is a good one. Why have a large SC staff when everyone else is getting in on it and it's turning into a commodity business? It seems abrupt, though. It takes months and months to get a SC/DCFC permitted and installed. As FINate suggested, why not just sell off the profitable unit when it's currently the recognized leader?
The layoffs also left suppliers in the lurch and the Tesla email is just...odd.Quote from: teslaI understand that this period of change may be challenging and that patience is not easy when expecting to be paid... [...] If currently working on an active Supercharging construction site, please continue. [...] Additionally, hold on working on any new material orders. [...] If waiting on delayed payment, please contact [email redacted] for a status update.(bolded)
If you were a sub working on a new SC and received that email, would you continue working on it? (Did Musk fire the Accounts Payable department too?)
maizefolk's explanation is a good one. Why have a large SC staff when everyone else is getting in on it and it's turning into a commodity business? It seems abrupt, though. It takes months and months to get a SC/DCFC permitted and installed. As FINate suggested, why not just sell off the profitable unit when it's currently the recognized leader?
The layoffs also left suppliers in the lurch and the Tesla email is just...odd.Quote from: teslaI understand that this period of change may be challenging and that patience is not easy when expecting to be paid... [...] If currently working on an active Supercharging construction site, please continue. [...] Additionally, hold on working on any new material orders. [...] If waiting on delayed payment, please contact [email redacted] for a status update.(bolded)
If you were a sub working on a new SC and received that email, would you continue working on it? (Did Musk fire the Accounts Payable department too?)
As a contractor - payment delays are not unheard of. Although certainly not welcome! My guess would be that there was some person who got laid off that facilitated invoices going to AP and it wasn't realized until some payments were late so now they are attempting to fix that glitch and sent out an email. I wouldn't think that it meant I would not be paid so unless I had an alternate gig I could work on with more immediate/guanteed payment, I would keep working and contact the email provided for the update.
In addition to what Maize said - there is also the aspect that Tesla is currently focusing hard on increasing range. So higher range means more distance between needing a supercharger on road trips and so I can see where there was a dimishing return on adding in there. And wasn't there something about gas stations adding in a few chargers? (not necessarily SC, but someone's EV charger?). Since a person can drive a tesla anywhere in the us right now with existing charging adding more SC locations for convenience given other potential charging opprotunities may not have been the biggest priority.
...
It's not an irrational strategy. It's straight out of business textbooks.
...
Kurtz: Did they say why, Willard, why they want to terminate my command?
Willard: I was sent on a classified mission, sir.
Kurtz: It's no longer classified, is it? Did they tell you?
Willard: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.
Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?
Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.
Is Musk still pushing to receive a 56 billion dollar pay package this year?
https://qz.com/tesla-elon-musk-investors-approve-compensation-pay-plan-1851415316 (https://qz.com/tesla-elon-musk-investors-approve-compensation-pay-plan-1851415316)
As the latest exec to leave Tesla (the 7th recently?) said, "it’s hard to see the long game." With Musk in charge, that's true.
What a sick joke. I cant imagine what employees are going through.Maybe the idea is to motivate everyone to work harder to get good reviews so that they won't be among those cut?
Maybe they are implementing what they learnt from twitter saga. Fire big chunk of workforce, hire some back and then fire them again in few weeks. Twitterization of Tesla.
The day before Elon Musk fired virtually all of Tesla’s electric-vehicle charging division last month, they had high hopes as charging chief Rebecca Tinucci went to meet with Musk about the network’s future, four former charging-network staffers told Reuters.
After Tinucci had cut between 15% and 20% of staffers two weeks earlier, part of much wider layoffs, they believed Musk would affirm plans for a massive charging-network expansion.
The meeting could not have gone worse. Musk, the employees said, was not pleased with Tinucci’s presentation and wanted more layoffs. When she balked, saying deeper cuts would undermine charging-business fundamentals, he responded by firing her and her entire 500-member team.
According to new reporting by Reuters, there was no strategy behind Musk's decision to lay off the Supercharger team. It was an act of pure spite against Rebecca Tinucci, the head of the division, because she refused to be a yes-woman:
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/inside-story-elon-musks-mass-firings-tesla-supercharger-staff-2024-05-15/QuoteThe day before Elon Musk fired virtually all of Tesla’s electric-vehicle charging division last month, they had high hopes as charging chief Rebecca Tinucci went to meet with Musk about the network’s future, four former charging-network staffers told Reuters.
After Tinucci had cut between 15% and 20% of staffers two weeks earlier, part of much wider layoffs, they believed Musk would affirm plans for a massive charging-network expansion.
The meeting could not have gone worse. Musk, the employees said, was not pleased with Tinucci’s presentation and wanted more layoffs. When she balked, saying deeper cuts would undermine charging-business fundamentals, he responded by firing her and her entire 500-member team.
Not to keep dumping on Musk all the time, but really... in any discussion about whether or not to invest in Tesla, he's by far the biggest risk factor. He's willing to trash an entire, profitable division of his own company just to prove he's the boss and he can do what he wants.
For Musk to be "fired" I think he'd first have to reduce his 13% stake in the company and death grip on the Board. That's a possibility, especially if Twitter continues to suck or if Tesla stock falls to the point his loans are called. Musk also has one foot in Open AI, and could decide to exit the boring and frustrating engineering limitations of making cars to get into the business of generative AI.According to new reporting by Reuters, there was no strategy behind Musk's decision to lay off the Supercharger team. It was an act of pure spite against Rebecca Tinucci, the head of the division, because she refused to be a yes-woman:
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/inside-story-elon-musks-mass-firings-tesla-supercharger-staff-2024-05-15/QuoteThe day before Elon Musk fired virtually all of Tesla’s electric-vehicle charging division last month, they had high hopes as charging chief Rebecca Tinucci went to meet with Musk about the network’s future, four former charging-network staffers told Reuters.
After Tinucci had cut between 15% and 20% of staffers two weeks earlier, part of much wider layoffs, they believed Musk would affirm plans for a massive charging-network expansion.
The meeting could not have gone worse. Musk, the employees said, was not pleased with Tinucci’s presentation and wanted more layoffs. When she balked, saying deeper cuts would undermine charging-business fundamentals, he responded by firing her and her entire 500-member team.
Not to keep dumping on Musk all the time, but really... in any discussion about whether or not to invest in Tesla, he's by far the biggest risk factor. He's willing to trash an entire, profitable division of his own company just to prove he's the boss and he can do what he wants.
I'll use this as one potential justification for investing in Tesla.
There's probably a good bit of upside if he gets kicked to the curb.
We'll also see what happens with his compensation package. Per the WSJ, it looks like institutional shareholders are voting against the pay package by a healthy margin.
Keep in mind the sheer scale of this package. Taking the $56B number at face value (which is dangerous when talking about options), this is ~10% of the entire company. If this package is turned down, each Tesla shareholder will own roughly ~10% more of the company than they otherwise would. While the word "unprecedented" gets thrown around a lot these days, I think it really applies here.
It doesn't change my negative take on the company. But it is fairly telling that the biggest bull case for the stock is that the CEO gets fired and his fraudulent pay package gets turned down.
For Musk to be "fired" I think he'd first have to reduce his 13% stake in the company and death grip on the Board. That's a possibility, especially if Twitter continues to suck or if Tesla stock falls to the point his loans are called. Musk also has one foot in Open AI, and could decide to exit the boring and frustrating engineering limitations of making cars to get into the business of generative AI.According to new reporting by Reuters, there was no strategy behind Musk's decision to lay off the Supercharger team. It was an act of pure spite against Rebecca Tinucci, the head of the division, because she refused to be a yes-woman:
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/inside-story-elon-musks-mass-firings-tesla-supercharger-staff-2024-05-15/QuoteThe day before Elon Musk fired virtually all of Tesla’s electric-vehicle charging division last month, they had high hopes as charging chief Rebecca Tinucci went to meet with Musk about the network’s future, four former charging-network staffers told Reuters.
After Tinucci had cut between 15% and 20% of staffers two weeks earlier, part of much wider layoffs, they believed Musk would affirm plans for a massive charging-network expansion.
The meeting could not have gone worse. Musk, the employees said, was not pleased with Tinucci’s presentation and wanted more layoffs. When she balked, saying deeper cuts would undermine charging-business fundamentals, he responded by firing her and her entire 500-member team.
Not to keep dumping on Musk all the time, but really... in any discussion about whether or not to invest in Tesla, he's by far the biggest risk factor. He's willing to trash an entire, profitable division of his own company just to prove he's the boss and he can do what he wants.
I'll use this as one potential justification for investing in Tesla.
There's probably a good bit of upside if he gets kicked to the curb.
We'll also see what happens with his compensation package. Per the WSJ, it looks like institutional shareholders are voting against the pay package by a healthy margin.
Keep in mind the sheer scale of this package. Taking the $56B number at face value (which is dangerous when talking about options), this is ~10% of the entire company. If this package is turned down, each Tesla shareholder will own roughly ~10% more of the company than they otherwise would. While the word "unprecedented" gets thrown around a lot these days, I think it really applies here.
It doesn't change my negative take on the company. But it is fairly telling that the biggest bull case for the stock is that the CEO gets fired and his fraudulent pay package gets turned down.
Per the WSJ, it looks like institutional shareholders are voting against the pay package by a healthy margin.
Musk also has one foot in Open AI, and could decide to exit the boring and frustrating engineering limitations of making cars to get into the business of generative AI.
Such a campaign might be needed in order for the vote to pass, which can only happen if a majority of voting shareholders agree. However, Musk, who owns 13 percent of Tesla stock won't be able to vote on the proposal, which means it comes down to the other 87 percent of shares. Of particular note is the fact that around 30 percent of all Tesla shares are owned by individual investors, which makes their vote count even more since Musk's shares are excluded.
Big institutional shareholders were not completely convinced back in 2018, such as investment management group Vanguard, and their support isn't guaranteed this time around either. The approval of individual investors, who tend to skip votes, could potentially shift the balance in Musk's favor
Per the WSJ, it looks like institutional shareholders are voting against the pay package by a healthy margin.
I googled but couldn't find this. Can you point me to where this might be?
Per the WSJ, it looks like institutional shareholders are voting against the pay package by a healthy margin.
I googled but couldn't find this. Can you point me to where this might be?
I found the article, but realized I misread the chart. The chart in the article references the institutional shareholders that voted against this package back in 2018.
I find it a stretch to think that many will vote for the package that didn’t vote for it before though.
My wife works with corporate governance issues every day, and her opinion is that the entire concept of corporate governance is a mockery if this type of pay package can be approved.
https://www.wsj.com/business/tesla-hits-the-road-to-persuade-shareholders-to-pay-elon-musk-46-billion-6ea31ea5?st=y87tmxucz8tqss6&reflink=article_copyURL_share
Per the WSJ, it looks like institutional shareholders are voting against the pay package by a healthy margin.
I googled but couldn't find this. Can you point me to where this might be?
I found the article, but realized I misread the chart. The chart in the article references the institutional shareholders that voted against this package back in 2018.
I find it a stretch to think that many will vote for the package that didn’t vote for it before though.
My wife works with corporate governance issues every day, and her opinion is that the entire concept of corporate governance is a mockery if this type of pay package can be approved.
https://www.wsj.com/business/tesla-hits-the-road-to-persuade-shareholders-to-pay-elon-musk-46-billion-6ea31ea5?st=y87tmxucz8tqss6&reflink=article_copyURL_share
Thanks for the followup. Found a couple threads on reddit where shareholders were voting against the package, texas move, and board members. Of course there are the fanfic thread. There will be a lot voting both ways so it's anyone's guess which way the count will go.
But was nice to find a bunch of people holding the stock are done with elon and the board. But even if that is so, is change really possible with the board nothing more than a string of toadies for musk? how does a change over occur if the ceo and board are in cahoots?
From that WSJ chart, my rough math is that institutional shareholders voted against the package roughly 2:1 last time. It will be less this time. While anything can happen, I would put money on Elon getting his payday.
It’s hard to overstate how ridiculous and out of the norm this situation is. A Delaware court ruled that Tesla’s board was so conflicted that they couldn’t objectively set compensation for the CEO. No public company other than Tesla is crazy enough to put themselves in that situation.
Any other company in this situation would make fundamental changes to board composition and structure. Having a board that can’t objectively evaluate the CEO defeats the purpose of a board.
The one thing a company in this situation shouldn’t do is to cram through a comp plan that a court of law says was designed in a way into deceive shareholders. And even more importantly, a board that is struggling to appear independent shouldn’t be out selling said compensation plan to shareholders.
From that WSJ chart, my rough math is that institutional shareholders voted against the package roughly 2:1 last time. It will be less this time. While anything can happen, I would put money on Elon getting his payday.
It’s hard to overstate how ridiculous and out of the norm this situation is. A Delaware court ruled that Tesla’s board was so conflicted that they couldn’t objectively set compensation for the CEO. No public company other than Tesla is crazy enough to put themselves in that situation.
Any other company in this situation would make fundamental changes to board composition and structure. Having a board that can’t objectively evaluate the CEO defeats the purpose of a board.
The one thing a company in this situation shouldn’t do is to cram through a comp plan that a court of law says was designed in a way into deceive shareholders. And even more importantly, a board that is struggling to appear independent shouldn’t be out selling said compensation plan to shareholders.
From what you wrote, why would you expect more institutions to vote in favor? Tesla stock hasn't done that well since he bought Twitter and the near-term sales/revenue prognosis isn't exactly great. Why would institutions be more favorable to an outsized package now compared to 2018?
“By disposing of $7,530,113,926 worth of Tesla stock in November and December 2022 while he was in possession of adverse, material non-public information, E. Musk exploited his position at Tesla, and he breached his fiduciary duties to Tesla,” the lawsuit claims, adding other directors were both “knowing and culpable” as well.
Headline:
Elon Musk accused of selling $7.5 billion of Tesla stock before releasing disappointing sales data that plunged the share price to two-year low (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-accused-selling-7-141507920.html)Quote“By disposing of $7,530,113,926 worth of Tesla stock in November and December 2022 while he was in possession of adverse, material non-public information, E. Musk exploited his position at Tesla, and he breached his fiduciary duties to Tesla,” the lawsuit claims, adding other directors were both “knowing and culpable” as well.
Never, never, buy a company with bad corporate governance.
Headline:
Elon Musk accused of selling $7.5 billion of Tesla stock before releasing disappointing sales data that plunged the share price to two-year low (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-accused-selling-7-141507920.html)Quote“By disposing of $7,530,113,926 worth of Tesla stock in November and December 2022 while he was in possession of adverse, material non-public information, E. Musk exploited his position at Tesla, and he breached his fiduciary duties to Tesla,” the lawsuit claims, adding other directors were both “knowing and culpable” as well.
Never, never, buy a company with bad corporate governance.
Article today alleging Musk asked Nvidia to move Twitter to the front of the line for chips over Tesla.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/04/elon-musk-told-nvidia-to-ship-ai-chips-reserved-for-tesla-to-x-xai.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/04/elon-musk-told-nvidia-to-ship-ai-chips-reserved-for-tesla-to-x-xai.html)
Headline:
Elon Musk accused of selling $7.5 billion of Tesla stock before releasing disappointing sales data that plunged the share price to two-year low (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-accused-selling-7-141507920.html)Quote“By disposing of $7,530,113,926 worth of Tesla stock in November and December 2022 while he was in possession of adverse, material non-public information, E. Musk exploited his position at Tesla, and he breached his fiduciary duties to Tesla,” the lawsuit claims, adding other directors were both “knowing and culpable” as well.
Never, never, buy a company with bad corporate governance.
Article today alleging Musk asked Nvidia to move Twitter to the front of the line for chips over Tesla.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/04/elon-musk-told-nvidia-to-ship-ai-chips-reserved-for-tesla-to-x-xai.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/04/elon-musk-told-nvidia-to-ship-ai-chips-reserved-for-tesla-to-x-xai.html)
At least Tesla shareholders are getting what they deserve from the leadership they voted for.
Headline:
Elon Musk accused of selling $7.5 billion of Tesla stock before releasing disappointing sales data that plunged the share price to two-year low (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-accused-selling-7-141507920.html)Quote“By disposing of $7,530,113,926 worth of Tesla stock in November and December 2022 while he was in possession of adverse, material non-public information, E. Musk exploited his position at Tesla, and he breached his fiduciary duties to Tesla,” the lawsuit claims, adding other directors were both “knowing and culpable” as well.
Never, never, buy a company with bad corporate governance.
Article today alleging Musk asked Nvidia to move Twitter to the front of the line for chips over Tesla.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/04/elon-musk-told-nvidia-to-ship-ai-chips-reserved-for-tesla-to-x-xai.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/04/elon-musk-told-nvidia-to-ship-ai-chips-reserved-for-tesla-to-x-xai.html)
At least Tesla shareholders are getting what they deserve from the leadership they voted for.
I agree, very prudent and excellent leadership to request that a vendor swap dates on Tesla and xAI orders. xAI needs the chips now, whereas Tesla isn't ready to install them. xAI gets orders fulfilled earlier than NVIDIA promised them and Tesla will get the chips they ordered later when they will hoepfully be ready to install them. Funny that they would write an article that makes it sounds like a bad thing...
Source?Headline:
Elon Musk accused of selling $7.5 billion of Tesla stock before releasing disappointing sales data that plunged the share price to two-year low (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-accused-selling-7-141507920.html)Quote“By disposing of $7,530,113,926 worth of Tesla stock in November and December 2022 while he was in possession of adverse, material non-public information, E. Musk exploited his position at Tesla, and he breached his fiduciary duties to Tesla,” the lawsuit claims, adding other directors were both “knowing and culpable” as well.
Never, never, buy a company with bad corporate governance.
Article today alleging Musk asked Nvidia to move Twitter to the front of the line for chips over Tesla.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/04/elon-musk-told-nvidia-to-ship-ai-chips-reserved-for-tesla-to-x-xai.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/04/elon-musk-told-nvidia-to-ship-ai-chips-reserved-for-tesla-to-x-xai.html)
At least Tesla shareholders are getting what they deserve from the leadership they voted for.
I agree, very prudent and excellent leadership to request that a vendor swap dates on Tesla and xAI orders. xAI needs the chips now, whereas Tesla isn't ready to install them. xAI gets orders fulfilled earlier than NVIDIA promised them and Tesla will get the chips they ordered later when they will hoepfully be ready to install them. Funny that they would write an article that makes it sounds like a bad thing...
That's probably because people don't trust half of what Elon says and think that he's making up excuses after the fact.
After all, he has stated that he's going to take his marbles (AI and robotics) and run off to xAI if he doesn't get another 10% of Tesla. You gotta admit, that's odd behavior for a CEO.
Headline:
Elon Musk accused of selling $7.5 billion of Tesla stock before releasing disappointing sales data that plunged the share price to two-year low (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-accused-selling-7-141507920.html)Quote“By disposing of $7,530,113,926 worth of Tesla stock in November and December 2022 while he was in possession of adverse, material non-public information, E. Musk exploited his position at Tesla, and he breached his fiduciary duties to Tesla,” the lawsuit claims, adding other directors were both “knowing and culpable” as well.
Never, never, buy a company with bad corporate governance.
Article today alleging Musk asked Nvidia to move Twitter to the front of the line for chips over Tesla.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/04/elon-musk-told-nvidia-to-ship-ai-chips-reserved-for-tesla-to-x-xai.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/04/elon-musk-told-nvidia-to-ship-ai-chips-reserved-for-tesla-to-x-xai.html)
At least Tesla shareholders are getting what they deserve from the leadership they voted for.
I agree, very prudent and excellent leadership to request that a vendor swap dates on Tesla and xAI orders. xAI needs the chips now, whereas Tesla isn't ready to install them. xAI gets orders fulfilled earlier than NVIDIA promised them and Tesla will get the chips they ordered later when they will hoepfully be ready to install them. Funny that they would write an article that makes it sounds like a bad thing...
Source?Headline:
Elon Musk accused of selling $7.5 billion of Tesla stock before releasing disappointing sales data that plunged the share price to two-year low (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-accused-selling-7-141507920.html)Quote“By disposing of $7,530,113,926 worth of Tesla stock in November and December 2022 while he was in possession of adverse, material non-public information, E. Musk exploited his position at Tesla, and he breached his fiduciary duties to Tesla,” the lawsuit claims, adding other directors were both “knowing and culpable” as well.
Never, never, buy a company with bad corporate governance.
Article today alleging Musk asked Nvidia to move Twitter to the front of the line for chips over Tesla.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/04/elon-musk-told-nvidia-to-ship-ai-chips-reserved-for-tesla-to-x-xai.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/04/elon-musk-told-nvidia-to-ship-ai-chips-reserved-for-tesla-to-x-xai.html)
At least Tesla shareholders are getting what they deserve from the leadership they voted for.
I agree, very prudent and excellent leadership to request that a vendor swap dates on Tesla and xAI orders. xAI needs the chips now, whereas Tesla isn't ready to install them. xAI gets orders fulfilled earlier than NVIDIA promised them and Tesla will get the chips they ordered later when they will hoepfully be ready to install them. Funny that they would write an article that makes it sounds like a bad thing...
That's probably because people don't trust half of what Elon says and think that he's making up excuses after the fact.
After all, he has stated that he's going to take his marbles (AI and robotics) and run off to xAI if he doesn't get another 10% of Tesla. You gotta admit, that's odd behavior for a CEO.
CEO suggests he’ll build products elsewhere without 25% stake
Musk wants 25% voting control of Tesla despite only owning 12% of company: ‘Unless that is the case, I would prefer to build products outside of Tesla’
Headline:
Elon Musk accused of selling $7.5 billion of Tesla stock before releasing disappointing sales data that plunged the share price to two-year low (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-accused-selling-7-141507920.html)Quote“By disposing of $7,530,113,926 worth of Tesla stock in November and December 2022 while he was in possession of adverse, material non-public information, E. Musk exploited his position at Tesla, and he breached his fiduciary duties to Tesla,” the lawsuit claims, adding other directors were both “knowing and culpable” as well.
Never, never, buy a company with bad corporate governance.
Article today alleging Musk asked Nvidia to move Twitter to the front of the line for chips over Tesla.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/04/elon-musk-told-nvidia-to-ship-ai-chips-reserved-for-tesla-to-x-xai.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/04/elon-musk-told-nvidia-to-ship-ai-chips-reserved-for-tesla-to-x-xai.html)
At least Tesla shareholders are getting what they deserve from the leadership they voted for.
I agree, very prudent and excellent leadership to request that a vendor swap dates on Tesla and xAI orders. xAI needs the chips now, whereas Tesla isn't ready to install them. xAI gets orders fulfilled earlier than NVIDIA promised them and Tesla will get the chips they ordered later when they will hoepfully be ready to install them. Funny that they would write an article that makes it sounds like a bad thing...
That’s not how corporate governance works. At all.
If Tesla didn’t need the chips, some middle manager would have called nvidia and deferred the order. Or possibly sold Tesla’s place in line for a decent profit given what I’ve heard about chip demand.
The CEO with a massive and irreconcilable conflict of interest wouldn’t be involved, and Xai would be nowhere near this transaction.
Fiduciary duty is still actually a thing.
I agree, very prudent and excellent leadership to request that a vendor swap dates on Tesla and xAI orders. xAI needs the chips now, whereas Tesla isn't ready to install them. xAI gets orders fulfilled earlier than NVIDIA promised them and Tesla will get the chips they ordered later when they will hoepfully be ready to install them. Funny that they would write an article that makes it sounds like a bad thing...
Usual suspects on here regurgitating the day’s negative headlines and pointing out the trees in the forest that they either refuse to see or cant’t see. Can’t say I’ve ever bothered to post relentlessly about a stock I don’t own on an internet message board, but some folks seem to be obsessed with this company and its CEO despite having no skin in the game. Free country, but it does beg the question, why is it so important for some to see this company fail/ Why do they feel the need to rail against it constantly? Just remember these same folks have been wrong about Tesla for over a decade now and have been spewing the same doomsday prophesies every step of the way.☝️
Tesla can’t make a compelling EV that people will want.
Tesla can’t mass produce EVs.
Tesla can’t mass produce EVs profitably.
Teslas catch fire and are poorly built.
Tesla is only a car company.
The competition will crush Tesla in2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025
The Cybertruck will never get built.
Nobody will pay good money for the CT.
Sales in Country X were down XX% for the month of XXXXXX, Tesla demand has collapsed and the company is doomed.
Tesla can’t make an appealing EV for less than$80k, $70k, $60k, $55k, $50k, $45k,$40k
Tesla is a technology company with expertise in manufacturing, software, energy storage, AI, robotics, and computing. Not everything they say will happen will happen. Much of what they say will happen will be delayed. However, in the end, they will succeed on multiple fronts. Those focusing on the quarterly results or the setbacks are missing the big picture of what Tesla has been able to accomplish where others have failed and what they are positioned to do going forward on a time scale of years. I heard all the same noise on this thread for years now. I held during a bull market while Tesla traded sideways or worse from 2013-2019. Six long years, but held, not out of some blind faith, but secure knowing Tesla was executing on their vision regardless of wether the stock price reflected their progress or not. I anticipate the period of 2022 - 2025 will be a similar period, where the stock price does not reflect the progress of the company because WS only cares about quarterly earnings and fails to see the level and speed of the coming disruption.
Tesla can’t make a compelling EV that people will want.
Tesla can’t mass produce EVs.
Tesla can’t mass produce EVs profitably.
Teslas catch fire and are poorly built.
Tesla is only a car company.
The competition will crush Tesla in2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025
The Cybertruck will never get built.
Nobody will pay good money for the CT.
Sales in Country X were down XX% for the month of XXXXXX, Tesla demand has collapsed and the company is doomed.
Tesla can’t make an appealing EV for less than$80k, $70k, $60k, $55k, $50k, $45k,$40k
Headline:
Elon Musk accused of selling $7.5 billion of Tesla stock before releasing disappointing sales data that plunged the share price to two-year low (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-accused-selling-7-141507920.html)Quote“By disposing of $7,530,113,926 worth of Tesla stock in November and December 2022 while he was in possession of adverse, material non-public information, E. Musk exploited his position at Tesla, and he breached his fiduciary duties to Tesla,” the lawsuit claims, adding other directors were both “knowing and culpable” as well.
Never, never, buy a company with bad corporate governance.
@ColoradoTribe I think it is these factors:
- Being deceived as investors (e.g. FSD, CT timeline, range, going private, etc)
- The observation that TSLA avoids marketing expenses only because their celebrity CEO spreads deceptive hype to investors on Xitter and somehow appears in headlines every single day. How long will this trick work?
- Self-serving / corrupt moves by the CEO, such as the pay package, AI extortion, vindictive layoffs, and packing the board with cronies.
- The reputation of Tesla products as being extremely expensive to own and having severe quality defects.
- The CEO's right-wing political motives being incompatible with the success of an environmentally friendly vehicle company.
- The CEO is literally a habitual user of a DEA schedule 3 (https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling) drug (ketamine).
Where to start with this pile of nonsense.
Is he a salesman? and an optimist sure? If you ask Gronk AI about Musk, it will tell you he often misses his self-imposed deadlines. And yet, his deadlines are highly ambitious, and when he misses, he usually doesn't miss by much. Thats not deception, that's motivation.
Read the full story on that pay package, He literally said he would work 5 years, 100 hours a week, and if he didn't achieve 10X revenue and a high profit % over that five years he wouldn't get paid. But he did do those things, he turned a car company no one thought would be around in 5 years to the #1 selling car in the world in that 5 years. He deserves what he negotiated.
Despite the negative press, Tesla has fewer quality issues than any other brand of car.
Musk is far from right wing, he is with the 70-80% of us in the middle that actually care about the environment, but take only practical steps to improve it. The 10% on the hardcore left only virtue signal about the environment and adopt counterproductive environmental policy. The 10% on the far right are clueless.
Yeah, I don't think so. He needed that money to complete the Twitter purchase, He was very clear on that. Musk sleeps on the floor under his desk, doesn't own a house, and as of a year or so had so little liquid cash he could barely buy a Tesla. He may be worth 200+ billion, but it's all in company equity, and Tesla is the only one that is remotely accessible. Besides, Tesla did great in 2022 and 2023. And while every insider has inside information, I really don't think his decision to sell that stock had anything to do with inside information on future stock prices.
For Tesla in particular, we can observe looting behavior by the CEO and his captive board. There is literally nothing to prevent the board from diverting 100% of TSLA's profits into Elmo's pockets. Why rush into that kind of risk?
For Tesla in particular, we can observe looting behavior by the CEO and his captive board. There is literally nothing to prevent the board from diverting 100% of TSLA's profits into Elmo's pockets. Why rush into that kind of risk?
And if this is upheld, in fact Elon's comp package will be larger than 100% of all the TSLA profits in the history of the company combined. And it all came out of the pockets of existing shareholders. Not normally the way stocks are supposed to work.
FWIW, we can currently buy out options on TSLA expiring in January 2021 at the $50 strike price for about $6.88. In layman's terms, this is a wager that would yield a 627% return if TSLA goes bankrupt and shares go to zero and a 100% loss if that fails to happen.
Those are not bad odds considering that Elon's Twitter addiction might have just blocked the company's last remaining route to raise the $2B it needs to operate a little longer.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4207331-tesla-may-now-locked-capital-markets (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4207331-tesla-may-now-locked-capital-markets)
I'm way too risk averse to throw $100k at the idea, but damn it sure is a tempting fantasy play to retire in 6-12 months.
FWIW, we can currently buy out options on TSLA expiring in January 2021 at the $50 strike price for about $6.88. In layman's terms, this is a wager that would yield a 627% return if TSLA goes bankrupt and shares go to zero and a 100% loss if that fails to happen.
Those are not bad odds considering that Elon's Twitter addiction might have just blocked the company's last remaining route to raise the $2B it needs to operate a little longer.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4207331-tesla-may-now-locked-capital-markets (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4207331-tesla-may-now-locked-capital-markets)
I'm way too risk averse to throw $100k at the idea, but damn it sure is a tempting fantasy play to retire in 6-12 months.
For example, Chpbstrd was concerned on shareholders’ behalf in 2018 that a Tesla bankruptcy was imminent with only one remaining route "to operate a little longer". To be fair, he didn’t define “a little longer”, so perhaps he/she meant 6 years? If his/her concern of the day back in 2018 managed to move an actual shareholder to sell, that shareholder would have missed out on 20X gains (selling at peak) or 10x gains based on today’s price.
FWIW, we can currently buy out options on TSLA expiring in January 2021 at the $50 strike price for about $6.88. In layman's terms, this is a wager that would yield a 627% return if TSLA goes bankrupt and shares go to zero and a 100% loss if that fails to happen.
Those are not bad odds considering that Elon's Twitter addiction might have just blocked the company's last remaining route to raise the $2B it needs to operate a little longer.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4207331-tesla-may-now-locked-capital-markets (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4207331-tesla-may-now-locked-capital-markets)
I'm way too risk averse to throw $100k at the idea, but damn it sure is a tempting fantasy play to retire in 6-12 months.
For example, Chpbstrd was concerned on shareholders’ behalf in 2018 that a Tesla bankruptcy was imminent with only one remaining route "to operate a little longer". To be fair, he didn’t define “a little longer”, so perhaps he/she meant 6 years? If his/her concern of the day back in 2018 managed to move an actual shareholder to sell, that shareholder would have missed out on 20X gains (selling at peak) or 10x gains based on today’s price.
FWIW, we can currently buy out options on TSLA expiring in January 2021 at the $50 strike price for about $6.88. In layman's terms, this is a wager that would yield a 627% return if TSLA goes bankrupt and shares go to zero and a 100% loss if that fails to happen.
Those are not bad odds considering that Elon's Twitter addiction might have just blocked the company's last remaining route to raise the $2B it needs to operate a little longer.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4207331-tesla-may-now-locked-capital-markets (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4207331-tesla-may-now-locked-capital-markets)
I'm way too risk averse to throw $100k at the idea, but damn it sure is a tempting fantasy play to retire in 6-12 months.
For example, Chpbstrd was concerned on shareholders’ behalf in 2018 that a Tesla bankruptcy was imminent with only one remaining route "to operate a little longer". To be fair, he didn’t define “a little longer”, so perhaps he/she meant 6 years? If his/her concern of the day back in 2018 managed to move an actual shareholder to sell, that shareholder would have missed out on 20X gains (selling at peak) or 10x gains based on today’s price.
This was no idle statement. Tesla's brushes with bankruptcy, including during the Model 3 launch, are well documented.
https://www.mosaic.tech/post/tesla-from-brink-of-bankruptcy-twice-to-worlds-most-valuable-automaker
With great risk comes great reward. If you were a shareholder then, and didn't understand that, then you are in large part, just lucky.
FWIW, we can currently buy out options on TSLA expiring in January 2021 at the $50 strike price for about $6.88. In layman's terms, this is a wager that would yield a 627% return if TSLA goes bankrupt and shares go to zero and a 100% loss if that fails to happen.
Those are not bad odds considering that Elon's Twitter addiction might have just blocked the company's last remaining route to raise the $2B it needs to operate a little longer.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4207331-tesla-may-now-locked-capital-markets (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4207331-tesla-may-now-locked-capital-markets)
I'm way too risk averse to throw $100k at the idea, but damn it sure is a tempting fantasy play to retire in 6-12 months.
For example, Chpbstrd was concerned on shareholders’ behalf in 2018 that a Tesla bankruptcy was imminent with only one remaining route "to operate a little longer". To be fair, he didn’t define “a little longer”, so perhaps he/she meant 6 years? If his/her concern of the day back in 2018 managed to move an actual shareholder to sell, that shareholder would have missed out on 20X gains (selling at peak) or 10x gains based on today’s price.
This was no idle statement. Tesla's brushes with bankruptcy, including during the Model 3 launch, are well documented.
https://www.mosaic.tech/post/tesla-from-brink-of-bankruptcy-twice-to-worlds-most-valuable-automaker
With great risk comes great reward. If you were a shareholder then, and didn't understand that, then you are in large part, just lucky.
The investment thesis in 2018 was dramatically different than it was today. The company was truly on the verge of bankruptcy, and was priced as such. Rivian will be in a similar spot in a little more than a year. The entire history of automotive startups since the 1930’s would tell you to bet against ongoing survival in that situation.
The investment thesis today involves believing the following:
1. Tesla has a sustainable margin advantage that global competitors (US, EU, and Chinese) cannot erode.
2. Tesla will continue to grow sales faster than the rest of the market, while sustaining margins.
3. Tesla will actually deliver on their AI promises on self driving cars within a meaningful timeframe.
You should absolutely buy Tesla stock if you believe that. You shouldn’t buy the stock if you don’t believe that story.
This was no idle statement. Tesla's brushes with bankruptcy, including during the Model 3 launch, are well documented.
https://www.mosaic.tech/post/tesla-from-brink-of-bankruptcy-twice-to-worlds-most-valuable-automaker
With great risk comes great reward. If you were a shareholder then, and didn't understand that, then you are in large part, just lucky.
$298 on the day of this post, according to the Wayback Machine.This was no idle statement. Tesla's brushes with bankruptcy, including during the Model 3 launch, are well documented.Looks like @ChpBstrd was spot on. TSLA share price was about $280 in January 2021.
https://www.mosaic.tech/post/tesla-from-brink-of-bankruptcy-twice-to-worlds-most-valuable-automaker
With great risk comes great reward. If you were a shareholder then, and didn't understand that, then you are in large part, just lucky.
FWIW, we can currently buy out options on TSLA expiring in January 2021 at the $50 strike price for about $6.88. In layman's terms, this is a wager that would yield a 627% return if TSLA goes bankrupt and shares go to zero and a 100% loss if that fails to happen.
Those are not bad odds considering that Elon's Twitter addiction might have just blocked the company's last remaining route to raise the $2B it needs to operate a little longer.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4207331-tesla-may-now-locked-capital-markets (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4207331-tesla-may-now-locked-capital-markets)
I'm way too risk averse to throw $100k at the idea, but damn it sure is a tempting fantasy play to retire in 6-12 months.
For example, Chpbstrd was concerned on shareholders’ behalf in 2018 that a Tesla bankruptcy was imminent with only one remaining route "to operate a little longer". To be fair, he didn’t define “a little longer”, so perhaps he/she meant 6 years? If his/her concern of the day back in 2018 managed to move an actual shareholder to sell, that shareholder would have missed out on 20X gains (selling at peak) or 10x gains based on today’s price.
This was no idle statement. Tesla's brushes with bankruptcy, including during the Model 3 launch, are well documented.
https://www.mosaic.tech/post/tesla-from-brink-of-bankruptcy-twice-to-worlds-most-valuable-automaker
With great risk comes great reward. If you were a shareholder then, and didn't understand that, then you are in large part, just lucky.
The investment thesis in 2018 was dramatically different than it was today. The company was truly on the verge of bankruptcy, and was priced as such. Rivian will be in a similar spot in a little more than a year. The entire history of automotive startups since the 1930’s would tell you to bet against ongoing survival in that situation.
The investment thesis today involves believing the following:
1. Tesla has a sustainable margin advantage that global competitors (US, EU, and Chinese) cannot erode.
2. Tesla will continue to grow sales faster than the rest of the market, while sustaining margins.
3. Tesla will actually deliver on their AI promises on self driving cars within a meaningful timeframe.
You should absolutely buy Tesla stock if you believe that. You shouldn’t buy the stock if you don’t believe that story.
I agree. The criticism was of a statement made in 2018, so I replied to bring context to 2018.
Tesla has a lot going for it. There is a second tier of challenge as an automaker, though, which is to bring new generations of your vehicles to market. There are a lot of one-hit-wonders that fizzled out after initial success. As competitors catch up on technology, there will be pressure on styling and reliability.
That may lead Tesla into some trouble as a full-line automaker, or it could hasten its transformation into something else. Or, they could prove adept at continuing to excite car buyers.
$298 on the day of this post, according to the Wayback Machine.This was no idle statement. Tesla's brushes with bankruptcy, including during the Model 3 launch, are well documented.Looks like @ChpBstrd was spot on. TSLA share price was about $280 in January 2021.
https://www.mosaic.tech/post/tesla-from-brink-of-bankruptcy-twice-to-worlds-most-valuable-automaker
With great risk comes great reward. If you were a shareholder then, and didn't understand that, then you are in large part, just lucky.
http://web.archive.org/web/20180920143238/https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/ (http://web.archive.org/web/20180920143238/https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/)
That's what stood out the most to me at the time - smart people were paying about 14% of the strike price to hedge only some of the last $50 of their $298 investment for just four months. And other people were paying that to bet on bankruptcy or at least a major price collapse within the next 4 months.
2018 TSLA was a $50B market cap company that was rumored to not be paying its bills with mere weeks worth of cash on hand, and so it was extraordinary they didn't collapse. As an investment, it was like a long strangle options play. It could go way up but would probably go way down.
In terms of was this gamble "a good investment", I'm not sure if hindsight counts from anyone who also didn't buy into Fisker, Canoo, Lordstown, Electric Mile, Proterra, Nikola, Lucid, Faraday, Lion Electric, Polestar, Rivian, or VinFast (https://wolfstreet.com/2024/06/19/the-collapse-of-the-ev-spacs-fisker-joins-the-bankruptcy-party-others-on-the-verge/) because each of these companies was offering a similar value proposition in circa 2021 or 2022 as Tesla was offering in 2018: Big product plans and running out of cash quickly.
The difference was luck. Tesla was lucky to have enthusiastic investors and customers, yet could still fail to earn a competitive return for common shareholders not named Elon Musk on all the money plowed into it over the years. As the plight of 2nd wave EV makers demonstrates, the market for EVs was not simply waiting for more charging stations or a change in social norms. Margins will eventually fall to the same levels as ICE vehicles, generous incentives will be necessary to make sales, fortunes will need to be spent on marketing from now on, and PE ratios will eventually come into alignment with other heavy manufacturers. Maybe not this year or next, but eventually.
In the meantime I won't be shorting TSLA. I didn't in 2018 either. We should all know better than to think valuation matters to the prices of stocks like these. Maybe for oil companies or consumer staple companies, but not TSLA.
The criticism was of a statement made in 2018, so I replied to bring context to 2018.Concerns over Tesla’s bankruptcy risk back in 2018 were wildly overblown. And Chpbstrd and others at the time pedaled in every doomsday scenario that garnered a headline without ever offering any unique perspective. They’ve had an axe to grind, have consistently been wrong in their prognostications on the stock and the company and continue to offer “advice” as if they have some proven track record of accuracy to stand behind.
In a Twitter conversation on Tuesday, Tesla CEO Elon Musk revealed that the carmaker was “about a month” from bankruptcy during the run-up in Model 3 production from mid-2017 to mid-2019.https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/03/musk-tesla-was-about-a-month-from-bankruptcy-during-model-3-ramp.html
The criticism was of a statement made in 2018, so I replied to bring context to 2018.Concerns over Tesla’s bankruptcy risk back in 2018 were wildly overblown. And Chpbstrd and others at the time pedaled in every doomsday scenario that garnered a headline without ever offering any unique perspective. They’ve had an axe to grind, have consistently been wrong in their prognostications on the stock and the company and continue to offer “advice” as if they have some proven track record of accuracy to stand behind.
The biggest proponent of this "wildly overblown" bankruptcy theory was Tesla CEO Elon Musk:
(From Nov 2020)QuoteIn a Twitter conversation on Tuesday, Tesla CEO Elon Musk revealed that the carmaker was “about a month” from bankruptcy during the run-up in Model 3 production from mid-2017 to mid-2019.https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/03/musk-tesla-was-about-a-month-from-bankruptcy-during-model-3-ramp.html
I nearly put this in my initial response:
“Choosing individual stocks without any idea of what you're looking for is like running through a dynamite factory with a burning match. You may live, but you're still an idiot.” -- Joel Greenblatt
$298 on the day of this post, according to the Wayback Machine.This was no idle statement. Tesla's brushes with bankruptcy, including during the Model 3 launch, are well documented.Looks like @ChpBstrd was spot on. TSLA share price was about $280 in January 2021.
https://www.mosaic.tech/post/tesla-from-brink-of-bankruptcy-twice-to-worlds-most-valuable-automaker
With great risk comes great reward. If you were a shareholder then, and didn't understand that, then you are in large part, just lucky.
http://web.archive.org/web/20180920143238/https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/ (http://web.archive.org/web/20180920143238/https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/)
That's what stood out the most to me at the time - smart people were paying about 14% of the strike price to hedge only some of the last $50 of their $298 investment for just four months. And other people were paying that to bet on bankruptcy or at least a major price collapse within the next 4 months.
2018 TSLA was a $50B market cap company that was rumored to not be paying its bills with mere weeks worth of cash on hand, and so it was extraordinary they didn't collapse. As an investment, it was like a long strangle options play. It could go way up but would probably go way down.
In terms of was this gamble "a good investment", I'm not sure if hindsight counts from anyone who also didn't buy into Fisker, Canoo, Lordstown, Electric Mile, Proterra, Nikola, Lucid, Faraday, Lion Electric, Polestar, Rivian, or VinFast (https://wolfstreet.com/2024/06/19/the-collapse-of-the-ev-spacs-fisker-joins-the-bankruptcy-party-others-on-the-verge/) because each of these companies was offering a similar value proposition in circa 2021 or 2022 as Tesla was offering in 2018: Big product plans and running out of cash quickly.
The difference was luck. Tesla was lucky to have enthusiastic investors and customers, yet could still fail to earn a competitive return for common shareholders not named Elon Musk on all the money plowed into it over the years. As the plight of 2nd wave EV makers demonstrates, the market for EVs was not simply waiting for more charging stations or a change in social norms. Margins will eventually fall to the same levels as ICE vehicles, generous incentives will be necessary to make sales, fortunes will need to be spent on marketing from now on, and PE ratios will eventually come into alignment with other heavy manufacturers. Maybe not this year or next, but eventually.
In the meantime I won't be shorting TSLA. I didn't in 2018 either. We should all know better than to think valuation matters to the prices of stocks like these. Maybe for oil companies or consumer staple companies, but not TSLA.
Your arrogance is boundless. You were wrong about this company and by extension its long-term stock prospects. Who cares? Move on. Instead you feel the need to come on here and explain how those who did their own due diligence and approachh to evaluating Tesla were just naive risk takers who just got “lucky” and somehow you’ve been right all along.
I didn’t get lucky. I had a negative net worth a few months out of college. I was fortunate to not have any student debt due to an athletic scholarship. I worked really hard, lived below my means, and saved. Despite having no advanced degree or high-paying tech job, I retired at age 40. Prior to Tesla, I never invested more than $5,000 in an individual stock and VTI was my largest holding. I had a diversified portfolio that included real estate holdings. My "aha moment" was in 2012 when I purchased a Nissan LEAF. It’s a far inferior product to a Tesla, but the advantages of EVs were obvious to me. I have spent at least an hour a day since 2013, when I purchased my first Tesla shares, researching the company and the market. I’m not a fanboy, though I support the mission of the company to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable electric transportation.
I didn’t retire in 2017 based on my Tesla investment. The stock hadn’t taken off yet. Tesla could go to zero and I’d stay retired. You are not the gatekeeper who gets to decide for all FIRE folks what is or is not a worthy investment. I assume you enjoy your own measure of financial success and clearly have your own criteria and determinations you make before investing. I’m happy for you for any success you have achieved. Please consider the possibility that everyone who spotted the coming disruption Tesla has wrought wasn’t naive or lucky. Consider that you just didn’t see the opportunity before you. It’s okay, it doesn’t make you a bad investor or dumb. I didn’t see or get Facebook or Amazon or Apple. Let it go.
I’ll take my own advice. My purpose on this thread was not to taught my earnings or prove to everyone how smart I am. I had knowledge on the company and wanted to counter a lot of misinformation I was seeing posted. Anyone wanting my perspective going forward is welcome to PM me. I’m getting ready to realize a long term dream and move onto a piece of fertile farm land and build a house on it for my family. My time will be better spent there going forward.
Best of "luck" to all!
The criticism was of a statement made in 2018, so I replied to bring context to 2018.Concerns over Tesla’s bankruptcy risk back in 2018 were wildly overblown. And Chpbstrd and others at the time pedaled in every doomsday scenario that garnered a headline without ever offering any unique perspective. They’ve had an axe to grind, have consistently been wrong in their prognostications on the stock and the company and continue to offer “advice” as if they have some proven track record of accuracy to stand behind.
The biggest proponent of this "wildly overblown" bankruptcy theory was Tesla CEO Elon Musk:
(From Nov 2020)QuoteIn a Twitter conversation on Tuesday, Tesla CEO Elon Musk revealed that the carmaker was “about a month” from bankruptcy during the run-up in Model 3 production from mid-2017 to mid-2019.https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/03/musk-tesla-was-about-a-month-from-bankruptcy-during-model-3-ramp.html
Getting close to bankruptcy doesn't mean it was going to go bankrupt. Tesla had(and has) leading EV techs and it would have been able to get financial assistance one way or another. A few companies would have been happy to get a piece of Tesla.
Tesla was a low-risk high-return investment back in 2016, 2017, 2018. Here we are in 2024, Tesla under $200 is a low-risk high-return investment again.
All this negativity to justify their miss of a 10-bagger(or more) is a waste of energy. There is always the next multi-bagger.
I nearly put this in my initial response:
“Choosing individual stocks without any idea of what you're looking for is like running through a dynamite factory with a burning match. You may live, but you're still an idiot.” -- Joel Greenblatt
Stock picking is not for everyone. It requires time, passion, and skill. If any part is lacking, it's better to stick with the index. Just because you can't pick individual stocks on a consistently basis doesn't mean no one can.
The criticism was of a statement made in 2018, so I replied to bring context to 2018.Concerns over Tesla’s bankruptcy risk back in 2018 were wildly overblown. And Chpbstrd and others at the time pedaled in every doomsday scenario that garnered a headline without ever offering any unique perspective. They’ve had an axe to grind, have consistently been wrong in their prognostications on the stock and the company and continue to offer “advice” as if they have some proven track record of accuracy to stand behind.
The biggest proponent of this "wildly overblown" bankruptcy theory was Tesla CEO Elon Musk:
(From Nov 2020)QuoteIn a Twitter conversation on Tuesday, Tesla CEO Elon Musk revealed that the carmaker was “about a month” from bankruptcy during the run-up in Model 3 production from mid-2017 to mid-2019.https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/03/musk-tesla-was-about-a-month-from-bankruptcy-during-model-3-ramp.html
Getting close to bankruptcy doesn't mean it was going to go bankrupt. Tesla had(and has) leading EV techs and it would have been able to get financial assistance one way or another. A few companies would have been happy to get a piece of Tesla.
Tesla had a negative cash flow in 2017/2018 and was running through $7430/minute.* At the end of 2017, it had $3.4B in cash and $9.4B in debt. If we multiple $7430/minute out to a year, we get...
Given that, which companies would've liked a piece of Tesla in 2018? Ford? GM? BYD?
* https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-burns-cash/#methodsQuoteTesla was a low-risk high-return investment back in 2016, 2017, 2018. Here we are in 2024, Tesla under $200 is a low-risk high-return investment again.
A company that has enough cash for only a year of operation, that has to convince 250,000 people to buy its BEVs, and that pays more debt interest than GM -- sure, that sounds low risk.QuoteAll this negativity to justify their miss of a 10-bagger(or more) is a waste of energy. There is always the next multi-bagger.
When I get together with Warren for our weekly bridge games, we always snicker about the "prescient" one-hit wonders.
The criticism was of a statement made in 2018, so I replied to bring context to 2018.Concerns over Tesla’s bankruptcy risk back in 2018 were wildly overblown. And Chpbstrd and others at the time pedaled in every doomsday scenario that garnered a headline without ever offering any unique perspective. They’ve had an axe to grind, have consistently been wrong in their prognostications on the stock and the company and continue to offer “advice” as if they have some proven track record of accuracy to stand behind.
The biggest proponent of this "wildly overblown" bankruptcy theory was Tesla CEO Elon Musk:
(From Nov 2020)QuoteIn a Twitter conversation on Tuesday, Tesla CEO Elon Musk revealed that the carmaker was “about a month” from bankruptcy during the run-up in Model 3 production from mid-2017 to mid-2019.https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/03/musk-tesla-was-about-a-month-from-bankruptcy-during-model-3-ramp.html
Getting close to bankruptcy doesn't mean it was going to go bankrupt. Tesla had(and has) leading EV techs and it would have been able to get financial assistance one way or another. A few companies would have been happy to get a piece of Tesla.
Tesla had a negative cash flow in 2017/2018 and was running through $7430/minute.* At the end of 2017, it had $3.4B in cash and $9.4B in debt. If we multiple $7430/minute out to a year, we get...
Given that, which companies would've liked a piece of Tesla in 2018? Ford? GM? BYD?
* https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-burns-cash/#methodsQuoteTesla was a low-risk high-return investment back in 2016, 2017, 2018. Here we are in 2024, Tesla under $200 is a low-risk high-return investment again.
A company that has enough cash for only a year of operation, that has to convince 250,000 people to buy its BEVs, and that pays more debt interest than GM -- sure, that sounds low risk.QuoteAll this negativity to justify their miss of a 10-bagger(or more) is a waste of energy. There is always the next multi-bagger.
When I get together with Warren for our weekly bridge games, we always snicker about the "prescient" one-hit wonders.
Your misunderstanding and negativity is clouding your judgement and that's why you think it was a high-risk investment back then. Bankruptcy was only one of the several possible outcomes. There were possible cash infusion in some form. You only listed 3 companies. How about you think more global? What about outside of the auto industry? Any potential private investors?
You seem to think that successful Tesla investors are one-hit wonders. What made you think of that? Some are gamblers buying options heavily for sure. But many are successful investors with a consistent track record. Btw, putting yourself together with Warren Buffet is disrespectful to Warren and many investors.
In other news!!
I saw my first live cybertruck on the road yesterday!! It did look very impressive!
Since I have of course read up a lot about the cybertruck being a shareholder, the shape is normal to me now. When I first saw it I was really confused and found it unsightly! My sense is that everyone will get used to the new shape and it won't be seen as "weird" for very long. I'm a bit older so for youngers I'm sure they will acclimate to the new shape much more quickly.
One thing I had totally not anticipated is the cybertruck quickly becoming a status symbol in the rapper community. I think that will change the direction of the market for sure.
Kim kardashian has one, and her kids got a toy cybertruck from grandma.
Any recent prognostications? I have a buddy who has puts at $100 for 1/17/2025 and thinks it's a good investment. His rationale is that Tesla's margins are going down, sales growth is slowing, competition is getting better and Musk promises things that are outlandish and don't happen (like a Robotaxi on Aug. 8th).I have an unwritten Investment Policy Statement that says to avoid such gambles so I wouldn't do it. Your friend isn't wrong about any of these reasons, but could still be wrong about the direction of the stock.
Tesla engineers put a lot of effort into the Robotaxi coupe's scissor-wing doors, but how exactly do those doors work in tight parking lots or if there is a post/parking meter nearby?
Barrons' went further (https://www.barrons.com/livecoverage/tesla-robotaxi-event/card/tesla-stock-sinks-why-the-event-was-a-let-down--cFEDjYrcCnmweRjZEzJY?siteid=yhoof2) and noted "a lack of safety technical detail" and missing "discussion for Tesla executives". As they noted, "Most of what Musk said has been said before."
\Do I maybe believe the new taxi could operate in a few select cities after a lot of testing? Sure. Waymo and others are doing it. But they’re doing it with human operators taking control from a call center environment when needed. This isn’t a market where they’re going to sell millions of cars. This is a market where they might sell a couple thousand cars a year. Maybe in the tens of thousands. As a low margin product.
\Do I maybe believe the new taxi could operate in a few select cities after a lot of testing? Sure. Waymo and others are doing it. But they’re doing it with human operators taking control from a call center environment when needed. This isn’t a market where they’re going to sell millions of cars. This is a market where they might sell a couple thousand cars a year. Maybe in the tens of thousands. As a low margin product.
Margins are lower in the ridesharing industry than for automakers. Replacing low pay drivers with expensive compute isn't going to improve the situation and may actually be worse. This certainly isn't going to get Tesla to a $5 trillion valuation, which IMO is the most shocking thing Musk said during the event.
I happened upon the livestream as it was getting a late start and watched it. Underwhelming is the best description. The robovan, while an interesting concept, isn't a new idea (e.g. Navya and others). The robots serving drinks were awkward and apparently controlled by human operators behind the scenes. The concept cabs were contained within a geofenced and highly controlled route. I've heard reports that Tesla was there a week or so before mapping everything out in detail. This really shows how far Tesla is behind Waymo, which is already doing 100,000 autonomous rides/week in real cities vs. a film set. Musk's demonstration of the "future" was a less capable version of what already exists.
\Do I maybe believe the new taxi could operate in a few select cities after a lot of testing? Sure. Waymo and others are doing it. But they’re doing it with human operators taking control from a call center environment when needed. This isn’t a market where they’re going to sell millions of cars. This is a market where they might sell a couple thousand cars a year. Maybe in the tens of thousands. As a low margin product.
Margins are lower in the ridesharing industry than for automakers. Replacing low pay drivers with expensive compute isn't going to improve the situation and may actually be worse. This certainly isn't going to get Tesla to a $5 trillion valuation, which IMO is the most shocking thing Musk said during the event.
I happened upon the livestream as it was getting a late start and watched it. Underwhelming is the best description. The robovan, while an interesting concept, isn't a new idea (e.g. Navya and others). The robots serving drinks were awkward and apparently controlled by human operators behind the scenes. The concept cabs were contained within a geofenced and highly controlled route. I've heard reports that Tesla was there a week or so before mapping everything out in detail. This really shows how far Tesla is behind Waymo, which is already doing 100,000 autonomous rides/week in real cities vs. a film set. Musk's demonstration of the "future" was a less capable version of what already exists.
I saw a data point from Waymo, although it may be dated at this point.
They apparently have 1.5 human operators per driverless car working in their call center type control center.
While there should be a path to improve that over time, it’s kinda hard today figure out how they’re gonna make money without some truly dramatic improvements.
\Do I maybe believe the new taxi could operate in a few select cities after a lot of testing? Sure. Waymo and others are doing it. But they’re doing it with human operators taking control from a call center environment when needed. This isn’t a market where they’re going to sell millions of cars. This is a market where they might sell a couple thousand cars a year. Maybe in the tens of thousands. As a low margin product.
Margins are lower in the ridesharing industry than for automakers. Replacing low pay drivers with expensive compute isn't going to improve the situation and may actually be worse. This certainly isn't going to get Tesla to a $5 trillion valuation, which IMO is the most shocking thing Musk said during the event.
I happened upon the livestream as it was getting a late start and watched it. Underwhelming is the best description. The robovan, while an interesting concept, isn't a new idea (e.g. Navya and others). The robots serving drinks were awkward and apparently controlled by human operators behind the scenes. The concept cabs were contained within a geofenced and highly controlled route. I've heard reports that Tesla was there a week or so before mapping everything out in detail. This really shows how far Tesla is behind Waymo, which is already doing 100,000 autonomous rides/week in real cities vs. a film set. Musk's demonstration of the "future" was a less capable version of what already exists.
I saw a data point from Waymo, although it may be dated at this point.
They apparently have 1.5 human operators per driverless car working in their call center type control center.
While there should be a path to improve that over time, it’s kinda hard today figure out how they’re gonna make money without some truly dramatic improvements.
Yes, though not sure what the ratio is these days. My understanding is the remote operators don't drive the vehicles, but rather help the automation get unstuck. Because there's an infinite number of weird edge cases in the real world. Making cars and running a ride sharing service are capital intensive and involve lots of depreciating assets. In the past Musk has suggested robotaxi would be so profitable that they would be appreciating assets Tesla would refuse to sell. That he apparently changed his mind and said the robotaxi could be purchased signals that Tesla knows these will be depreciating assets that wouldn't be very profitable as a service.
\Do I maybe believe the new taxi could operate in a few select cities after a lot of testing? Sure. Waymo and others are doing it. But they’re doing it with human operators taking control from a call center environment when needed. This isn’t a market where they’re going to sell millions of cars. This is a market where they might sell a couple thousand cars a year. Maybe in the tens of thousands. As a low margin product.
Margins are lower in the ridesharing industry than for automakers. Replacing low pay drivers with expensive compute isn't going to improve the situation and may actually be worse. This certainly isn't going to get Tesla to a $5 trillion valuation, which IMO is the most shocking thing Musk said during the event.
I happened upon the livestream as it was getting a late start and watched it. Underwhelming is the best description. The robovan, while an interesting concept, isn't a new idea (e.g. Navya and others). The robots serving drinks were awkward and apparently controlled by human operators behind the scenes. The concept cabs were contained within a geofenced and highly controlled route. I've heard reports that Tesla was there a week or so before mapping everything out in detail. This really shows how far Tesla is behind Waymo, which is already doing 100,000 autonomous rides/week in real cities vs. a film set. Musk's demonstration of the "future" was a less capable version of what already exists.
I saw a data point from Waymo, although it may be dated at this point.
They apparently have 1.5 human operators per driverless car working in their call center type control center.
While there should be a path to improve that over time, it’s kinda hard today figure out how they’re gonna make money without some truly dramatic improvements.
Yes, though not sure what the ratio is these days. My understanding is the remote operators don't drive the vehicles, but rather help the automation get unstuck. Because there's an infinite number of weird edge cases in the real world. Making cars and running a ride sharing service are capital intensive and involve lots of depreciating assets. In the past Musk has suggested robotaxi would be so profitable that they would be appreciating assets Tesla would refuse to sell. That he apparently changed his mind and said the robotaxi could be purchased signals that Tesla knows these will be depreciating assets that wouldn't be very profitable as a service.
Regardless of ownership, this is a service Tesla will have to provide in a car with no steering wheel.
Is the model that they sell you the car for $30k and you have to pay them a service fee to be driven around in your own car? Someone is going to be paying for real people to be monitoring the car, and it likely won’t be cheap.
I’m trying to keep an open mind here, but there are so many fundamental unanswered questions that it’s hard to see anything other than vaporware here.
Scoble can be heard in the video asking one of the robots, “Hey Optimus, how much of you is AI?”
The robot, or whoever was controlling it, seemed to scramble for an answer, saying “I can’t disclose just how much. That’s something you’ll have to find out later.”
Regardless of ownership, this is a service Tesla will have to provide in a car with no steering wheel.
Is the model that they sell you the car for $30k and you have to pay them a service fee to be driven around in your own car? Someone is going to be paying for real people to be monitoring the car, and it likely won’t be cheap.
I’m trying to keep an open mind here, but there are so many fundamental unanswered questions that it’s hard to see anything other than vaporware here.
Although the robotaxi can be purchased by individuals, it actually makes no sense for them to do so. This is a product that is optimized for fleet operators, i.e someone who owns a fleet of tens, hundreds, or maybe thousands of robotaxis. The robotaxi has no steering wheel and no charging plug. It simply isn’t designed for the owner to be sitting in it. An owner would like the option to drive around without a FSD subscription. An owner would like the option to plug their car in for faster and more flexible charging.
In contrast, fleet operators won’t want to drive the cars around manually, and they won’t want to have to plug the cars in manually. Both of these mean you have to hire human employees, and the less employees a fleet operator needs to hire, the better.
One wonders what value-add a fleet operator provides in such a scenario. Tesla builds the vehicle, the app, the FSD. The fleet operator is really good at maintenance and/or cleaning the cabs? Or are they essentially just providing the financing?
The robotaxi was a bust. It seems the minimum design criteria should be able to seat four adults with luggage. I did some Googling and it appears the average Uber trip is between 1.5 and 1.75 passengers. So the robotaxi can handle the majority of trips...but what about the rest? It seems odd they would size it too small to handle a reasonable fraction of trips.
You know, it’s for two people, and that’s like 90% of all shared rides.
Induction charging seems cool. But do you want it? Because now you need induction chargers in the ground in order to operate it.
Over all, the hype seems misplaced. All this was was a car with no driver controls, and oddly designed for the task. This does not sound particularly innovative or noteworthy.
One wonders what value-add a fleet operator provides in such a scenario. Tesla builds the vehicle, the app, the FSD. The fleet operator is really good at maintenance and/or cleaning the cabs? Or are they essentially just providing the financing?
Fleet operators will be people or companies who want to operate large fleets of vehicles. More vehicles, more profit. It’s like real estate investors who own large portfolios of property.
Fleet operators will have access to real estate to store the vehicles and operate the charging pads. They will handle cleaning of the cars and coordinate maintenance. They will also have the resources to finance all of the above.
Individual owners won’t be able to do that. Most of them won’t even want dirty and irresponsible strangers using their cars.
Individuals and fleet operators are two completely different use cases and it makes sense to design separate products for which are optimized for each use case.
Now, let us consider the value of third party fleet operators versus Tesla being their own fleet operator.
Imagine if Tesla wants to become a fleet operator. First, they will have to start securing real estate to house all of the robotaxis and charging mats, which is a slow and tedious process. They have to convince someone to sell real estate or give them access to it, and then they have to install the charging infrastructure. It’s a tedious and bespoke process every single time, requiring negotiations, permitting, and bureaucracy at every step. Then they need to handle cleaning and coordination of maintenance which is laborious and low margin.
By letting other people be fleet operators, Tesla can get around the real estate bottleneck and just focus on manufacturing as many vehicles as possible, and charging high-margin fees to operate the vehicles. Real estate is only a bottleneck that inhibits growth, and there is no value in cleaning and coordination of maintenance.
The main downside to this approach is that although letting other people be fleet operators will enable greater scale in the short term, in the longer term Tesla will end up with a bunch of wealthy and powerful fleet operators who will fight over the fees being charged to them, or accuse Tesla of unfair business practices if Tesla chooses to operate their own fleet and compete against them. Then politicians like Lina Khan and Elizabeth Warren will use this as an opportunity to accuse Tesla of monopolistic business practices.
Expect a bunch of hit piece media articles about how Tesla is exploiting their fleet operators with predatory fees. The same thing has happened to other large “platform companies” like Apple and Amazon. Amazon has tried to get around the fees conflict by shifting to in-house brands that they own completely. But this only led to more conflicts with third party sellers and politicians, who accused Amazon of “stealing business” from the third parties on Amazon’s platform.
It’s a really tricky situation, being a platform, because there is an unavoidable conflict of interest between platforms and their users, and platforms end up being targeted by politicians who exploit this tension. Platform owners and third party businesses on the platform both want to make as much money as possible, and it becomes an inevitable tug of war that turns political after a while.
Personally, I think the less politically risky approach would be for there to be no third party fleet operators and for Tesla to be the sole fleet operator for their own cars. Then, Tesla would be free to compete fairly with other companies like Waymo and nobody would accuse them of monopolistic business practices. But they have to balance the political risk against being able to scale faster by bringing in third party fleet operators.
Legacy automakers already have this problem with their dealerships. They can’t get rid of them or compete with them because of the entrenched political power of the dealerships.
What you're describing w.r.t real estate holdings is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Tesla owns the app therefore they control dispatch, which means operators have no ability to brand or differentiate themselves by competing on price or service. A Tesla cab is a Tesla cab, regardless of operator. Really the only thing a fleet operator can do is drive down their costs -- mostly real estate and maintenance, neither is easy to control -- and hope they can defend some profitability as Tesla captures more of the profits over time and competition in the robotaxi market drives down margins. Fleet operators hold very capital intense parts of the business (buying the cars and real estate) with little up-side while being at the mercy of Tesla to ensure they're able to make ends meet. I can see why this would be attractive to Tesla, especially if the margins on operating a robotaxi aren't great, but it's likely a terrible business for a third party.
https://gizmodo.com/elon-musks-beer-pouring-optimus-robots-are-not-autonomous-2000510899 (https://gizmodo.com/elon-musks-beer-pouring-optimus-robots-are-not-autonomous-2000510899)QuoteScoble can be heard in the video asking one of the robots, “Hey Optimus, how much of you is AI?”
The robot, or whoever was controlling it, seemed to scramble for an answer, saying “I can’t disclose just how much. That’s something you’ll have to find out later.”
https://gizmodo.com/elon-musks-beer-pouring-optimus-robots-are-not-autonomous-2000510899 (https://gizmodo.com/elon-musks-beer-pouring-optimus-robots-are-not-autonomous-2000510899)QuoteScoble can be heard in the video asking one of the robots, “Hey Optimus, how much of you is AI?”
The robot, or whoever was controlling it, seemed to scramble for an answer, saying “I can’t disclose just how much. That’s something you’ll have to find out later.”
Tesla just released a video showing where Optimus is at:
https://x.com/Tesla_Optimus/status/1846797392521167223
Apparently it can walk around, map out its surroundings, and share this information to other Optimus bots for more efficient navigation. It can walk up stairs and dock itself at a charging station. It can pick up objects and hand them to people. It can wave back at you if you wave at it. The behavior of the robot is all controlled by AI and is not hardcoded like many earlier humanoid robots.
Unlike Figure, Optimus has no LLM integration for communication, planning, and logic. I think Figure is still ahead of Tesla here, but Tesla is in a better position to mass produce robots compared to Figure.
For those of you who are living under a rock, here is a seven month old video of Figure’s humanoid robot using an LMM for communication and planning of actions:
https://youtu.be/Sq1QZB5baNw
That said, I don’t think LLMs are much of a moat. Tesla could relatively easily integrate an LLM into Optimus and achieve similar results. In my opinion, the most important thing to watch for is how dexterous and agile the robots are, and how easily they can interact with their environment. And all behavior needs to be controlled by AI, or it doesn’t count.
Nobody wanted to discuss Tesla Q3 earnings?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blZj-7nkwok
Nobody wanted to discuss Tesla Q3 earnings?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blZj-7nkwok
It seems pretty good! Margins went up somehow even with all the discounts
Lol, I think there would have been quite the hue and cry if tesla missed earnings.
But beat estimates handily?
crickets.
Lol, I think there would have been quite the hue and cry if tesla missed earnings.
But beat estimates handily?
crickets.
I'm not sure "crickets" is right... the stock went up about 20% on the earnings results.
While I'm not much of a Tesla bull or bear, I'll try to play devil's advocate.
One week of +22% is less impressive when $TSLA performance is placed in context:
+8% YTD, versus +23% for the S&P 500
-8%/year for the past 3 years, versus +10%/year for the S&P 500.
It's a good sign that Tesla can beat expectations while competing in China. But prior quarters and years tell a different story, so one good quarter needs to be repeated before it matters.
25% if you count today too....
crickets was here - not the market.
If they were going to release a Model 2 type car, I could believe it. Otherwise, where is the demand going to come from? They can easily make more cars right now, they just aren't selling them fast enough.I wonder why they went the direction of a fake robotaxi instead of a $20-25k bargain EV. Perhaps they (i.e. Musk) feared the damage that a down-market product would do to Tesla's image as a luxury performance brand. Hide and watch, Hyundai/Kia will beat them to it.
It would take a hell of a price cut to get sales up there but maybe that's in the cards. Who knows?
Most likely it's just random Musk noise as usual.
-W
If they were going to release a Model 2 type car, I could believe it. Otherwise, where is the demand going to come from? They can easily make more cars right now, they just aren't selling them fast enough.I wonder why they went the direction of a fake robotaxi instead of a $20-25k bargain EV. Perhaps they (i.e. Musk) feared the damage that a down-market product would do to Tesla's image as a luxury performance brand. Hide and watch, Hyundai/Kia will beat them to it.
It would take a hell of a price cut to get sales up there but maybe that's in the cards. Who knows?
Most likely it's just random Musk noise as usual.
-W
I'm happy because this all probably means much, much cheaper used Teslas in a few years when we'll need something bigger than the Bolt for our growing kids.
The ideal scenario, really, would be as much Musk insanity as possible, coupled with making a LOT more cars that they need to slash prices to move, further cratering the used market.
-W
Be interesting to see how they do it...if they do it.The more I think about this, the more I see why Musk dreads the idea of a $25k EV. It would be too damaging to the luxury / elite Tesla brand. They've been making performance luxury cars - not practical commuters - since the old circa 2003 Lotus conversions. The selling point was always out-accelerating Corvettes, not saving the planet or saving money.
Tesla's outrageous valuation isn't based on them being a boring, normal car company. It's based on them being a tech company that's going to create answers for needs we didn't even know we had. It's been pretty clear for quite awhile that Elon really doesn't care about building a normal business. He wants to do new, exciting things that he can hype up and sell to investors as the next best thing. Iterating new models to fill in market voids is better left to Toyota et al. He's got robots, flamethrowers, tunnels, robotaxis, AI, etc, etc, etc to invest in that will totally change the course of human history.These are solid points. Management's decision making has to be somewhat affected by their PE ratio of 69, compared to, for example, 6.5 for Honda and 5.6 for GM. Under no circumstances can Tesla's directors make choices that result in shares losing 90% of their value. Yet there is also risk in coasting the bleeding edge of innovation. A series of dud new tech investments could vaporize cash while nonetheless leaving the company with a manufacturer's valuation.
“Basically, I think having a regular $25K model is pointless. It would be silly.” - Elon Musk
According to this:
https://electrek.co/2024/10/29/tesla-plans-to-deliver-an-extra-500000-electric-cars-next-year-heres-how/
Earlier this year, we reported that Elon Musk had canceled plans for new, cheaper Tesla vehicles built on the new ‘unboxed’ platform, often referred to as “the $25,000 Tesla.”
Cheaper cars on the 3/Y platform in early 2025. Be interesting to see how they do it...if they do it.
Up 15% on Trump getting elected. I wonder what favors Musk will ask of our 47th president?
-W
Up 15% on Trump getting elected. I wonder what favors Musk will ask of our 47th president?
-W
Musk is now deeply embedded in determining which organizations deserve federal funding. He doesn't need to ask any favours, he can conflict of interest his way to victory all on his own.
Yep. I think Musk will have free rein to hire/fire anyone at the FAA, NHSTA, SEC and maybe key positions at the DOE and EPA. Whatever “self driving” rulemaking processes are produced will be a direct result of Musk’s hires.Yep, I think we'll see Tesla get exclusive approval for Full Self Driving, regardless of the risks or readiness of the tech.
Elon can get FSD approved by the Gov't, but if consumers have no faith in it it won't be overly popular as a product.
Also, NHTSA is one thing, but much of the regulation for roads, safety, and autonomy is at a state level. Even in friendly states, he can't just wave his hand to make it happen. Insurers will also take a cold look at what the risks are, and charge accordingly.1) Insurers have been punishing people for living in Florida for years, and yet people are still flocking to the state. SUVs are more expensive to insure than sedans, and yet here we are, with most car buyers more concerned about the infotainment system than the insurance bill. Metal roofs are cheaper to insure and last longer than asphalt, but guess what gets installed. My point is the middle class has a long history of making suboptimal decisions as new things to buy are introduced. It's part of why people can't seem to make ends meet even as economic growth has been stellar.
And, even if approved, it doesn't mean the ambulance chasers won't hit Tesla and him personally for fatalities caused for not utilizing maximum safety measures. Particularly if he personally had a hand in permitting it, in government.
It's almost like the safety features don't fully counteract the negative impact of overly rapid acceleration and distracting touch panel displays.
It's almost like the safety features don't fully counteract the negative impact of overly rapid acceleration and distracting touch panel displays.
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-least-likely-involved-fatal-accidents-study/#google_vignette
It's almost like the safety features don't fully counteract the negative impact of overly rapid acceleration and distracting touch panel displays.
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-least-likely-involved-fatal-accidents-study/#google_vignette
So, the above study is about the percentage of accidents that are fatal. The study I posted is about the fatalities per billion miles.
So, if Tesla has more fatalities than average per billion miles, but less fatalities per accident. Voila'! More accidents per billion miles, too. By an even higher percentage.
I'm not trying to throw shade on Tesla. I am trying to bring out the truth. I am a 28-year auto industry veteran, and I take safety very seriously.
It's no secret if you speed or go faster than conditions allow, no car can save you from yourself and stupid behavior.
Even if the number of miles driven were accurate, the finding is meaningless in the context of "vehicle" safety. Tesla vehicles have been objectively tested in crash testing etc, by leading US and European safety agencies to be some of the safest cars on the road. Even the author(s) of the study admit the cars are intrinsically safe. It's no secret if you speed or go faster than conditions allow, no car can save you from yourself and stupid behavior.
The only real world take away is if you can't handle a fast car responsibly or keep your eyes on the road then maybe a Tesla is not the car for you.
The only real world take away is if you can't handle a fast car responsibly or keep your eyes on the road then maybe a Tesla is not the car for you.
Thread Question - Is Tesla a good investment?
Thread Answer - Yes (as demonstrated by the only scoreboard that matters)
Removing the crash-disclosure provision would particularly benefit Tesla, which has reported most of the crashes – more than 1,500 – to federal safety regulators under the program.
The recommendation to kill the crash-reporting rule came from a transition team tasked with producing a 100-day strategy for automotive policy. The group called the measure a mandate for "excessive" data collection
A Reuters analysis of the NHTSA crash data shows Tesla accounted for 40 out of 45 fatal crashes reported to NHTSA through Oct. 15.
NHTSA said in a statement that such data is crucial to evaluating the safety of emerging automated-driving technologies. Two former NHTSA employees said the crash-reporting requirements were pivotal to agency investigations into Tesla’s driver-assistance features that led to 2023 recalls.
The data has influenced 10 investigations into six companies, NHTSA said, as well as nine safety recalls involving four different companies.
In one example, NHTSA fined Cruise, the self-driving startup owned by General Motors (GM.N)
, opens new tab, $1.5 million in September for failing to report a 2023 incident in which a vehicle hit and dragged a pedestrian who had been struck by another car.
This is the biggest consumer technology product since smartphones. Would be a shame to miss the bus on it.
Will be good from an environmental view as well as this will be the deathblow for the ICE car industry.
Seems like all Mustachians would be interested in a robotaxi service to reduce their transportation costs as well...
It looks like Tesla will be releasing unsupervised Full Self Driving in the next 24 months. Check out videos of FSD 13.2.1 on Youtube for it's current state. Here's an example video.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYlQjINzO_o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYlQjINzO_o).
The personal transportation market in the Western world + Japan is roughly $5 trillion annually (Vehicle operating costs and drivers time). Elon likes to say that the release of unsupervised FSD will be the greatest value increase in history. I tend to think that he is correct on this front. Play with valuations at 20% market penetration, 30% margin and 40X PE ratios.
Again, if you're interested in keeping informed about this, watch for videos of the newest version of FSD on Youtube. Or if you are really curious, rent one on Turo for a day (Make sure it has FSD v13+) and try it for yourself. This is the biggest consumer technology product since smartphones. Would be a shame to miss the bus on it.
In regards to the state of the technology, if you are curious to learn, go take a Tesla with the 13+ series software on it installed for a drive. This is the first version that I would recommend to people who are not into the technology for technologies sake. It is crossing over human level driving ability right now and looks set to exceed human level driving in the next few months. It is already a better driver than my mother.
Thread Question - Is Tesla a good investment?
Thread Answer - Yes (as demonstrated by the only scoreboard that matters)
Unless, we of course, have different definitions of "good" ;)
I view EVs and Tesla in particular as a sort of Jevon's Paradox. As cars become more efficient, we will make/use more of them. And while that is certainly better than making more gas vehicles, it is a distraction from the fact that cars as daily personal transport are a bad thing from a resource management standpoint.
I hardly think that Wall Street is the epitome of the definition of "good", but I realize that I'm in the investor alley thread so it is assumed on some level as such. There are other more broad versions of investing- investing in community or future generations and the like.
It's a pretty low bar! Maybe 20th percentile? However it has been surpassed. My dad (Former bush pilot, pretty good driver) says that it is equal to him driving around Ann Arbor, Michigan (A city he knows) and is superior to him in cities he doesn't know. The thing to realize here is that this is changing very quickly. Overall human driving ability is roughly static. This technology is improving everyday. It will soon be better than human drivers in aggregate, then at some point it will be better than any human driver. Never tired, never drunk, never angry, never gets old, learns from millions of other cars all around the world. This is happening right now.In regards to the state of the technology, if you are curious to learn, go take a Tesla with the 13+ series software on it installed for a drive. This is the first version that I would recommend to people who are not into the technology for technologies sake. It is crossing over human level driving ability right now and looks set to exceed human level driving in the next few months. It is already a better driver than my mother.
haha! are we left to wonder how low that bar may be??
As far as a $5t addressable market. This includes USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, NZ and Japan. I do believe that people value their time. This should be included.
Personal cars: Why own a low operating cost beater to drive to work every day when you can schedule a Robotaxi to be at your door every morning for the same cost but no headache?
Public transportation: Other than in extremely urban cores, public transportation in the USA pretty much sucks. Why would I ride a dirty/dangerous bus that requires a mile of walking when I could hire a Robotaxi for the same price and have door to door service?
As far as a $5t addressable market. This includes USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, NZ and Japan. I do believe that people value their time. This should be included.
Oh, sorry, I read US+Japan.
I cited the source of $1.9T in the US but where do you get $5T from?QuotePersonal cars: Why own a low operating cost beater to drive to work every day when you can schedule a Robotaxi to be at your door every morning for the same cost but no headache?
This is the holiday parking lot problem.QuotePublic transportation: Other than in extremely urban cores, public transportation in the USA pretty much sucks. Why would I ride a dirty/dangerous bus that requires a mile of walking when I could hire a Robotaxi for the same price and have door to door service?
A bus/subway (a shared vehicle, which distributes its costs among its users) ticket is like $2.90 in NYC. There's no way a for-profit Robotaxi is going to take you from the Broadway Bridge to Central Park for that little.
A full scale disruption would be getting rid of cars for the majority of use cases. This is a same ol' same ol' with a small speed bump.
| | Region | Households | Monthly Direct Costs | Monthly Time Costs | Monthly Total | Annual Total per Household | Aggregated Annual Total | |------------------|----------------|-----------------------|--------------------|---------------|----------------------------|---------------------------| | United States | ~130 million | $850 | $450 | $1,300 | $15,600 | $2.0 trillion | | European Union | ~195 million | $500 | $300 | $800 | $9,600 | $1.87 trillion | | Canada | ~15 million | $830 | $375 | $1,205 | $14,460 | $217 billion | | Australia | ~10 million | $800 | $350 | $1,150 | $13,800 | $138 billion | | New Zealand | ~1.8 million | $700 | $300 | $1,000 | $12,000 | $22 billion | | Japan | ~50 million | $550 | $225 | $775 | $9,300 | $465 billion | |
Could TSLA be a 10 bagger a decade from now?
That answers the question "Has Tesla been a good investment", but not "is" Tesla now a good investment.Could TSLA be a 10 bagger a decade from now?After 50 pages of discussion I can definitively answer this question. And the answer is: Yes.
That answers the question "Has Tesla been a good investment", but not "is" Tesla now a good investment.Could TSLA be a 10 bagger a decade from now?After 50 pages of discussion I can definitively answer this question. And the answer is: Yes.
Good points on the tariffs. Potential tariffs on imports from China could also affect Tesla as it has one factory in China that exports a third of its production. There's possible indications that Musk may be starting to rub some of the Trump Team the wrong way as well:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/elon-musk-trump-donald-mar-a-lago-appointment-position-rcna179826
When the new EV tax credit was coming in with its requirements for american manufacturing/sourcing, wasn't Tesla was actually in substantially better shape than many other manufacturers because they had a more integrated and more domestic supply chain than a lot of the other auto companies?
Incoming administration has been signaling that it wants to greatly increase domestic oil production, selling it as a boon for consumers with lower gas prices but my hunch is it is more of a strategy to hurt the economies of Iran and Russia. At any rate, do you think a period of lower gas prices might affect Tesla and other EV manufacturers sales?You can't invest in TSLA by looking at fundamentals. It is more like GameStop, Bitcoin or other speculations. Only reason for its valuation was its growth and for couple years now growth has stagnated, there is not a Hugh growth story as in 2020/2021.
Incoming administration has been signaling that it wants to greatly increase domestic oil production, selling it as a boon for consumers with lower gas prices but my hunch is it is more of a strategy to hurt the economies of Iran and Russia. At any rate, do you think a period of lower gas prices might affect Tesla and other EV manufacturers sales?You can't invest in TSLA by looking at fundamentals. It is more like GameStop, Bitcoin or other speculations. Only reason for its valuation was its growth and for couple years now growth has stagnated, there is not a Hugh growth story as in 2020/2021.
I don't think gas price will have much of impact over EV sales. Overtime EVs will continue to get cheaper along with batteries and other components more than offset cost of gas.
Incoming administration has been signaling that it wants to greatly increase domestic oil production, selling it as a boon for consumers with lower gas prices but my hunch is it is more of a strategy to hurt the economies of Iran and Russia. At any rate, do you think a period of lower gas prices might affect Tesla and other EV manufacturers sales?You can't invest in TSLA by looking at fundamentals. It is more like GameStop, Bitcoin or other speculations. Only reason for its valuation was its growth and for couple years now growth has stagnated, there is not a Hugh growth story as in 2020/2021.
I don't think gas price will have much of impact over EV sales. Overtime EVs will continue to get cheaper along with batteries and other components more than offset cost of gas.
Any one comparing Tesla to BTC and GME shows a lack of understanding or bad faith.
In January of 2025 Tesla will:
1) Roll out a refresh of world's best selling car with Juniper Model Y, which already started production in Shanghai.
2) Start battery production in the newest gigafactory located in Shanghai, allowing Tesla to continue annual growth of 50% in battery storage business while maintaining 30% margins.
3) Start production from their new Texas lithium refining plant and further vertical integration of their supply train.
In 1H of 2025 Tesla will:
1) Start robotaxi service in Austin TX.
2) Release further versions of FSD 13 to owners. Rapidly improving FSD will see an increase in subscriptions from existing owners.
3) Begin production of two new lower cost EV models using new manufacturing techniques (unboxed).
4) Continue expansion of the supercharging network.
5) Ramp CyberTruck production and bring cost of production down.
6) Put Optimus humanoid robots on the Tesla factory floor
7) Likely to enter into a licensing agreement for FSD software with a legacy OEM.
8) Continue to expand its lead in compute power.
You are confusing the time between revenue waves with a lack of progress. Tesla is constantly seeking to improve its products, vertically integrate, push technological boundaries and expand to new markets. Those who wait until the revenue from the above progress/investments hits the bottom line will have missed the opportunity.
Incoming administration has been signaling that it wants to greatly increase domestic oil production, selling it as a boon for consumers with lower gas prices but my hunch is it is more of a strategy to hurt the economies of Iran and Russia. At any rate, do you think a period of lower gas prices might affect Tesla and other EV manufacturers sales?You can't invest in TSLA by looking at fundamentals. It is more like GameStop, Bitcoin or other speculations. Only reason for its valuation was its growth and for couple years now growth has stagnated, there is not a Hugh growth story as in 2020/2021.
I don't think gas price will have much of impact over EV sales. Overtime EVs will continue to get cheaper along with batteries and other components more than offset cost of gas.
Any one comparing Tesla to BTC and GME shows a lack of understanding or bad faith.
In January of 2025 Tesla will:
1) Roll out a refresh of world's best selling car with Juniper Model Y, which already started production in Shanghai.
2) Start battery production in the newest gigafactory located in Shanghai, allowing Tesla to continue annual growth of 50% in battery storage business while maintaining 30% margins.
3) Start production from their new Texas lithium refining plant and further vertical integration of their supply train.
In 1H of 2025 Tesla will:
1) Start robotaxi service in Austin TX.
2) Release further versions of FSD 13 to owners. Rapidly improving FSD will see an increase in subscriptions from existing owners.
3) Begin production of two new lower cost EV models using new manufacturing techniques (unboxed).
4) Continue expansion of the supercharging network.
5) Ramp CyberTruck production and bring cost of production down.
6) Put Optimus humanoid robots on the Tesla factory floor
7) Likely to enter into a licensing agreement for FSD software with a legacy OEM.
8) Continue to expand its lead in compute power.
You are confusing the time between revenue waves with a lack of progress. Tesla is constantly seeking to improve its products, vertically integrate, push technological boundaries and expand to new markets. Those who wait until the revenue from the above progress/investments hits the bottom line will have missed the opportunity.
That's my point. After growth stalled valuation now is based on whole bunch of stories and speculations.
One of the most recent of these stories is Elmos political advantages and I don't think it is of any advantage to Tesla. He is continuing to alienate customers from right, left and in between.
In 1H of 2025 Tesla will:
1) Start robotaxi service in Austin TX.
2) Release further versions of FSD 13 to owners. Rapidly improving FSD will see an increase in subscriptions from existing owners.
3) Begin production of two new lower cost EV models using new manufacturing techniques (unboxed).
4) Continue expansion of the supercharging network.
5) Ramp CyberTruck production and bring cost of production down.
6) Put Optimus humanoid robots on the Tesla factory floor
7) Likely to enter into a licensing agreement for FSD software with a legacy OEM.
8) Continue to expand its lead in compute power.
You are confusing the time between revenue waves with a lack of progress. Tesla is constantly seeking to improve its products, vertically integrate, push technological boundaries and expand to new markets. Those who wait until the revenue from the above progress/investments hits the bottom line will have missed the opportunity.
That's my point. After growth stalled valuation now is based on whole bunch of stories and speculations.
One of the most recent of these stories is Elmos political advantages and I don't think it is of any advantage to Tesla. He is continuing to alienate customers from right, left and in between.
Growth hasn't stalled! Tesla is building factories (newly completed Shanghai gigafactory more than doubles mega-pack production capacity), ramping new products, installing new superchargers, increasing compute power exponentially, etc. This is all growth! If you refuse to recognize this growth that's your choice. Again, you are confusing a lull between two waves of revenue growth while ignoring Tesla pushing ahead and hitting growth milestones that will increase revenue in 2025.
None of the things I listed above are pie-in-th-sky aspirations. They have either occurred or will be accomplished in the first half of 2025 with near 100% certainty. None of the things I listed has anything to do with politics. For everything I listed there is something else being developed or improved beneath the surface.
In 1H of 2025 Tesla will:
1) Start robotaxi service in Austin TX.
2) Release further versions of FSD 13 to owners. Rapidly improving FSD will see an increase in subscriptions from existing owners.
3) Begin production of two new lower cost EV models using new manufacturing techniques (unboxed).
4) Continue expansion of the supercharging network.
5) Ramp CyberTruck production and bring cost of production down.
6) Put Optimus humanoid robots on the Tesla factory floor
7) Likely to enter into a licensing agreement for FSD software with a legacy OEM.
8) Continue to expand its lead in compute power.
You are confusing the time between revenue waves with a lack of progress. Tesla is constantly seeking to improve its products, vertically integrate, push technological boundaries and expand to new markets. Those who wait until the revenue from the above progress/investments hits the bottom line will have missed the opportunity.
That's my point. After growth stalled valuation now is based on whole bunch of stories and speculations.
One of the most recent of these stories is Elmos political advantages and I don't think it is of any advantage to Tesla. He is continuing to alienate customers from right, left and in between.
Growth hasn't stalled! Tesla is building factories (newly completed Shanghai gigafactory more than doubles mega-pack production capacity), ramping new products, installing new superchargers, increasing compute power exponentially, etc. This is all growth! If you refuse to recognize this growth that's your choice. Again, you are confusing a lull between two waves of revenue growth while ignoring Tesla pushing ahead and hitting growth milestones that will increase revenue in 2025.
None of the things I listed above are pie-in-th-sky aspirations. They have either occurred or will be accomplished in the first half of 2025 with near 100% certainty. None of the things I listed has anything to do with politics. For everything I listed there is something else being developed or improved beneath the surface.
Has Tesla stated this (#1, start robotaxi service)? Because another posted above said it would be 18-24 months.
What's the other lower cost EV (#3) besides the Model 2?
Re: #5, they'd better lower costs because sales of the $100k/$120k model have slowed. August-Sept-Oct sales were 5,428-4,335-4,039, per S&P Global Mobility.
Besides a comment that Musk said in April, what else is known about #7, the licensing agreement? Has a legacy OEM (GM? BMW?) said anything?
Incoming administration has been signaling that it wants to greatly increase domestic oil production, selling it as a boon for consumers with lower gas prices but my hunch is it is more of a strategy to hurt the economies of Iran and Russia. At any rate, do you think a period of lower gas prices might affect Tesla and other EV manufacturers sales?You can't invest in TSLA by looking at fundamentals. It is more like GameStop, Bitcoin or other speculations. Only reason for its valuation was its growth and for couple years now growth has stagnated, there is not a Hugh growth story as in 2020/2021.
I don't think gas price will have much of impact over EV sales. Overtime EVs will continue to get cheaper along with batteries and other components more than offset cost of gas.
Any one comparing Tesla to BTC and GME shows a lack of understanding or bad faith.
In January of 2025 Tesla will:
1) Roll out a refresh of world's best selling car with Juniper Model Y, which already started production in Shanghai.
2) Start battery production in the newest gigafactory located in Shanghai, allowing Tesla to continue annual growth of 50% in battery storage business while maintaining 30% margins.
3) Start production from their new Texas lithium refining plant and further vertical integration of their supply train.
In 1H of 2025 Tesla will:
1) Start robotaxi service in Austin TX.
2) Release further versions of FSD 13 to owners. Rapidly improving FSD will see an increase in subscriptions from existing owners.
3) Begin production of two new lower cost EV models using new manufacturing techniques (unboxed).
4) Continue expansion of the supercharging network.
5) Ramp CyberTruck production and bring cost of production down.
6) Put Optimus humanoid robots on the Tesla factory floor
7) Likely to enter into a licensing agreement for FSD software with a legacy OEM.
8) Continue to expand its lead in compute power.
You are confusing the time between revenue waves with a lack of progress. Tesla is constantly seeking to improve its products, vertically integrate, push technological boundaries and expand to new markets. Those who wait until the revenue from the above progress/investments hits the bottom line will have missed the opportunity.
That's my point. After growth stalled valuation now is based on whole bunch of stories and speculations.
One of the most recent of these stories is Elmos political advantages and I don't think it is of any advantage to Tesla. He is continuing to alienate customers from right, left and in between.
Growth hasn't stalled! Tesla is building factories (newly completed Shanghai gigafactory more than doubles mega-pack production capacity), ramping new products, installing new superchargers, increasing compute power exponentially, etc. This is all growth! If you refuse to recognize this growth that's your choice. Again, you are confusing a lull between two waves of revenue growth while ignoring Tesla pushing ahead and hitting growth milestones that will increase revenue in 2025 and beyond.
None of the things listed above are pie-in-the-sky aspirations. They have either occurred or will be accomplished in the first half of 2025 with near 100% certainty. None of the things I listed has anything to do with politics. For everything I listed there is something else being developed or improved beneath the surface.
If you don't think Tesla is a good investment that's more than fine, don't invest, or short it. But you can't objectively say the company has stagnated. I didn't even mention the construction of the semi factory in NV, which is ongoing and will be completed before the end of 2025.
Tesla is the only foreign car manufacturer to grow sales in China this year. Every other foreign manufacturer has declining sales in the world's largest car market. Let that sink in. Honda had to merge with Nissan to keep Nissan from going bankrupt. VW is shuttering factories and laying off employees. GM and Ford are scaling back EV plans and pushing soon to be obsolete hybrids. Want to talk about growth, by comparison, Tesla is in a league of its own compared to the rest of the car industry outside of China (and maybe Korea).
Tesla is the only company on the planet that has the AI, robotics, compute, and manufacturing abilities to bring a mass-produced, AI driven, humanoid robot to market profitably. I think Tesla may turn a profit with Optimus before FSD/robotaxi and virtually no one is talking about this multi-trillion market for labor disruption because they can't see past Elon's antics and daily outrage headlines.
Has Tesla stated this (#1, start robotaxi service)? Because another posted above said it would be 18-24 months.
What's the other lower cost EV (#3) besides the Model 2?
Re: #5, they'd better lower costs because sales of the $100k/$120k model have slowed. August-Sept-Oct sales were 5,428-4,335-4,039, per S&P Global Mobility.
Besides a comment that Musk said in April, what else is known about #7, the licensing agreement? Has a legacy OEM (GM? BMW?) said anything?
"During the company’s Q3 earnings call in October, Elon said that employees in the Bay Area, California were already testing ride-hailing services internally. Using the company’s development app, Tesla employees can already request rides and be taken to anywhere in the Bay, according to the CEO."
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-us-cities-driverless-ride-hailing/#
Tesla has been in talks with Austin since May 2024. No exact date, but rollout to employees in SF and progress with v13 of FSD strongly suggest to me 1H of 2025 for first public rollout of robotaxi trial.
Model 2 has been shelved, announced months ago. Two lower cost vehicles are a Model Y variant with 3rd row and smaller sedan based on Model 3 platform. Lines are already under construction in Austin and will deploy aspects of "unboxed" manufacturing process.
CT was profitable in Q4 despite low production volumes. COGS for CT will decline further as vehicle production continue to ramp and 4680 cell ramp progresses.
FSD licensing will follow same path as NACS charger adoption. The first OEM to license gets the best deal and the floodgates open from there. Progress demonstrated with FSD 13 will increases likelihood of FSD deal with OEM in near future. They are not going to publicly discuss private negotiations in advance of announcing a deal. GM cancelling their Cruise self-driving program further suggests OEMs will need to outsource their self-driving software if they want to stay relevant, same as happened with supercharger adoption.
FSD licensing will follow same path as NACS charger adoption. The first OEM to license gets the best deal and the floodgates open from there. Progress demonstrated with FSD 13 will increases likelihood of FSD deal with OEM in near future. They are not going to publicly discuss private negotiations in advance of announcing a deal. GM cancelling their Cruise self-driving program further suggests OEMs will need to outsource their self-driving software if they want to stay relevant, same as happened with supercharger adoption.
I think Tesla may turn a profit with Optimus before FSD/robotaxi and virtually no one is talking about this multi-trillion market for labor disruption because they can't see past Elon's antics and daily outrage headlines.I saw the unveiling event. I kept thinking: With Chuck E Cheese moving to digitally rendered entertainers, and Disney "remodeling" (probably closing) its Hall of Presidents ... what will be the future TAM of animatronics? Multi-trillion seems unlikely.
From my perspective, there are several companies backed by billions of dollars with super smart people working very hard on self driving. Some of them are already doing trials on public streets, in a pretty limited way. Tesla isn't one of them AFAIK.
Incoming administration has been signaling that it wants to greatly increase domestic oil production, selling it as a boon for consumers with lower gas prices but my hunch is it is more of a strategy to hurt the economies of Iran and Russia. At any rate, do you think a period of lower gas prices might affect Tesla and other EV manufacturers sales?
FSD licensing will follow same path as NACS charger adoption. The first OEM to license gets the best deal and the floodgates open from there. Progress demonstrated with FSD 13 will increases likelihood of FSD deal with OEM in near future. They are not going to publicly discuss private negotiations in advance of announcing a deal. GM cancelling their Cruise self-driving program further suggests OEMs will need to outsource their self-driving software if they want to stay relevant, same as happened with supercharger adoption.
FSD won't be licensed unless it can integrate radars, lidars, and other sensors. Other OEM's are committed to the other safety sensors, even for ADAS capability.
And, if FSD can support other sensors, it will be hard for Elon to argue against them, as volume safety data comes in.
Seems like a catch 22, to me. Unless Elon is willing to change his mind on sensors.
In 1H of 2025 Tesla will:
1) Start robotaxi service in Austin TX.
2) Release further versions of FSD 13 to owners. Rapidly improving FSD will see an increase in subscriptions from existing owners.
3) Begin production of two new lower cost EV models using new manufacturing techniques (unboxed).
4) Continue expansion of the supercharging network.
5) Ramp CyberTruck production and bring cost of production down.
6) Put Optimus humanoid robots on the Tesla factory floor
7) Likely to enter into a licensing agreement for FSD software with a legacy OEM.
8) Continue to expand its lead in compute power.
You are confusing the time between revenue waves with a lack of progress. Tesla is constantly seeking to improve its products, vertically integrate, push technological boundaries and expand to new markets. Those who wait until the revenue from the above progress/investments hits the bottom line will have missed the opportunity.
That's my point. After growth stalled valuation now is based on whole bunch of stories and speculations.
One of the most recent of these stories is Elmos political advantages and I don't think it is of any advantage to Tesla. He is continuing to alienate customers from right, left and in between.
Growth hasn't stalled! Tesla is building factories (newly completed Shanghai gigafactory more than doubles mega-pack production capacity), ramping new products, installing new superchargers, increasing compute power exponentially, etc. This is all growth! If you refuse to recognize this growth that's your choice. Again, you are confusing a lull between two waves of revenue growth while ignoring Tesla pushing ahead and hitting growth milestones that will increase revenue in 2025.
None of the things I listed above are pie-in-th-sky aspirations. They have either occurred or will be accomplished in the first half of 2025 with near 100% certainty. None of the things I listed has anything to do with politics. For everything I listed there is something else being developed or improved beneath the surface.
Has Tesla stated this (#1, start robotaxi service)? Because another posted above said it would be 18-24 months.
What's the other lower cost EV (#3) besides the Model 2?
Re: #5, they'd better lower costs because sales of the $100k/$120k model have slowed. August-Sept-Oct sales were 5,428-4,335-4,039, per S&P Global Mobility.
Besides a comment that Musk said in April, what else is known about #7, the licensing agreement? Has a legacy OEM (GM? BMW?) said anything?
2014 - Promises that Tesla vehicles autonomous driving will be 90% complete by the end of the year
2015 - Promises that Tesla vehicles can drive autonomously on freeways and simple roads in a matter of months
2016 - Musk stages and fakes a demonstration of a model X driving itself. Musk promises full self driving next year.
2017 - Musk promises that by the end of the year Tesla cars will be able to drive from California to New York with no user input. In December he promises that full self driving is about 2 years away.
2018 - Musk promises cross country autonomous coast to coast driving capability in 3-6 months. In November he says that autonomous driving is only a year away.
2019 - Musk says he will be feature complete for fully autonomous driving this year and that nobody will need to pay attention to their car while it's driving. Predictions for imminent millions of robotaxis start coming out of Tesla.
2020 - Musk says that he will have fully autonomous self driving by the end of the year.
2021 - Musk says that Teslas will be safer drivers than humans by the end of the year. Musk also says that full autonomous driving will be achieved in 2022.
2022 - Musk says he'll be shocked if they don't achieve full self driving by the end of the year.
2023 - Claims that Tesla will achieve fully autonomous driving by the end of the year.
2024 - Claims that by Q2 of 2025 Tesla's FSD will be safer than human drivers. Again.
Elon Musk has a very, very long history of overpromising/outright lying about Tesla's capabilities as they relate to self-driving. Why should I believe him this time?
No other OEMs have a credible AEV programs. GM just scrapped Blue Cruise after pumping billions into it.FSD licensing will follow same path as NACS charger adoption. The first OEM to license gets the best deal and the floodgates open from there. Progress demonstrated with FSD 13 will increases likelihood of FSD deal with OEM in near future. They are not going to publicly discuss private negotiations in advance of announcing a deal. GM cancelling their Cruise self-driving program further suggests OEMs will need to outsource their self-driving software if they want to stay relevant, same as happened with supercharger adoption.
FSD won't be licensed unless it can integrate radars, lidars, and other sensors. Other OEM's are committed to the other safety sensors, even for ADAS capability.
And, if FSD can support other sensors, it will be hard for Elon to argue against them, as volume safety data comes in.
Seems like a catch 22, to me. Unless Elon is willing to change his mind on sensors.
Tesla is recording millions of FSD miles every week. Once they have the data showing FSD is safer than the average human driver by some factor regulators will feel compelled to approve it and insurance companies will require it to get the best premiums. It will have nothing to do with how many sensors you can cram onto the car.
Humans drivers don't have lidar. We use visions and a brain (neural net). Tesla FSD will use eight cameras (eyes) and a neural net with reaction times far faster than a human is capable.
Don't want to believe me, the CEO of Google (parent company of Waymo) just said Tesla is the leader in this space and Waymo is second.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VO-5SIIkfPg
2014 - Promises that Tesla vehicles autonomous driving will be 90% complete by the end of the year
2015 - Promises that Tesla vehicles can drive autonomously on freeways and simple roads in a matter of months
2016 - Musk stages and fakes a demonstration of a model X driving itself. Musk promises full self driving next year.
2017 - Musk promises that by the end of the year Tesla cars will be able to drive from California to New York with no user input. In December he promises that full self driving is about 2 years away.
2018 - Musk promises cross country autonomous coast to coast driving capability in 3-6 months. In November he says that autonomous driving is only a year away.
2019 - Musk says he will be feature complete for fully autonomous driving this year and that nobody will need to pay attention to their car while it's driving. Predictions for imminent millions of robotaxis start coming out of Tesla.
2020 - Musk says that he will have fully autonomous self driving by the end of the year.
2021 - Musk says that Teslas will be safer drivers than humans by the end of the year. Musk also says that full autonomous driving will be achieved in 2022.
2022 - Musk says he'll be shocked if they don't achieve full self driving by the end of the year.
2023 - Claims that Tesla will achieve fully autonomous driving by the end of the year.
2024 - Claims that by Q2 of 2025 Tesla's FSD will be safer than human drivers. Again.
Elon Musk has a very, very long history of overpromising/outright lying about Tesla's capabilities as they relate to self-driving. Why should I believe him this time?
2024 - Google CEO admits Tesla is leader in space and Waymo is second
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VO-5SIIkfPg
2025 - Tesla launches pilot program for Robotaxi in select TX and/or CA cities
2026 - Tesla begins mass production of Robotaxi and receives first state level regulatory approval.
2027 - Long term investors are richly rewarded and could care less that it took a few extra years to go 10X (again).
2028 - Bears move goal posts further out (again).
Has Tesla stated this (#1, start robotaxi service)? Because another posted above said it would be 18-24 months.
What's the other lower cost EV (#3) besides the Model 2?
Re: #5, they'd better lower costs because sales of the $100k/$120k model have slowed. August-Sept-Oct sales were 5,428-4,335-4,039, per S&P Global Mobility.
Besides a comment that Musk said in April, what else is known about #7, the licensing agreement? Has a legacy OEM (GM? BMW?) said anything?
I can purchase a CyberTruck in Colorado for $76k today after state and federal tax credits. Tesla CHOSE to sell the high end/expensive foundation series first because that's how Tesla funds the production ramp and reached profitability on the model last quarter.
There is no Model 2. It has been shelved in favor of the two cheaper variants of the MY and M3, which was already explained to you.
Why don't you call Tesla and ask them to comment on their internal deliberations with other OEMs regarding licensing. A deal will be announced when it's done. Wether it's in one month or ten months is truly irrelevant for a long term investor. The Google CEO even admitted Tesla is the leader in autonomous driving and Waymo is second. First OEM to license gets the best deal and it's becoming clear to those who know the space who the winner is going to be.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VO-5SIIkfPg
Your MO is tired. You have been wrong about Tesla since the beginning of this thread, likely longer. From the prospects of the investment, the desirability of the products, the company roadmap, to its leadership. Yet, you just keep coming back with the next round of concerns taken from second-hand news headlines. You show a consistent lack of basic understanding of this space and still spout off like you haven't been wrong all along. Anybody who sold based on your bad takes missed out on huge gains that many, myself included, saw coming.
Cybertruck production is reaching volumes (~100,000/yr) where it will contribute meaningfully to Tesla’s bottom line. The CT production rate will hit the 250k/yr run rate in 2025. Order backlog is estimated to be over 2 million.
2025 - Tesla launches pilot program for Robotaxi in select TX and/or CA citiesBears? Elon Musk has repeatedly moved the goalposts. Every year or two, he claims Tesla will have full self driving that year. And every time so far, he's wrong. I do not give credit to a stopped clock when it is right twice a day.
2026 - Tesla begins mass production of Robotaxi and receives first state level regulatory approval.
2028 - Bears move goal posts further out (again).
2027 - Long term investors are richly rewarded and could care less that it took a few extra years to go 10X (again).You're claiming that Tesla's current price of $410.44/share will hit $4,104/share by the end of 2027?
Musk has always been polarizing, but can't imagine this won't cause a lot of harm to Tesla. Sad and shameful if it doesn't, in fact. What I have seen being said and done lately brings this saying to mind:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing."
Musk has always been polarizing, but can't imagine this won't cause a lot of harm to Tesla. Sad and shameful if it doesn't, in fact. What I have seen being said and done lately brings this saying to mind:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing."
I will be mildly amused if Canada places a retaliatory tariff on Tesla specifically.
I will be mildly amused if Canada places a retaliatory tariff on Tesla specifically.
The one-two punch would be tariff'ing Tesla and also allowing Chinese EVs to be sold in Canada.They could, but they have an electric car mandate to think about (https://globalnews.ca/news/10970357/ev-rebates-canada-automakers/#:~:text=The%20federal%20government%20has%20mandated,100%20per%20cent%20by%202035.). Maybe it would be an opening for other manufacturers.Musk has always been polarizing, but can't imagine this won't cause a lot of harm to Tesla. Sad and shameful if it doesn't, in fact. What I have seen being said and done lately brings this saying to mind:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing."
I will be mildly amused if Canada places a retaliatory tariff on Tesla specifically.
Here is a Tesla FSD demo - I think its quite impressive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deWN8SZF7N8
Here is a Tesla FSD demo - I think its quite impressive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deWN8SZF7N8
I wonder if this is a real video, or another faked/staged 'demonstration' of FSD . . . like the 2016 one that only came to light when one of the engineers involved in the staging came clean?
Here is a Tesla FSD demo - I think its quite impressive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deWN8SZF7N8
FWIW i own tesla stock in my roth IRA and its up 145%. I also put a deposit down on a cyber truck but doubt i will actually buy one, not because i don't want one, but DW wants at least one family car that is 4wd, we barely drive and when we do its 2-3.5 hour trip one way, and the $80k price tag which works against our financial plans. If you haven't seen the whistling diesel cyber truck durability test videos its both impressive and terrifying. He compares a cyber truck to a regular ford f-150. The cyber truck does incredibly well in some cases and the frame breaks, the bumper breaks off the frame, which is a crazy safety hazard for the few folks who may tow a trailer.
Right now the stock price seems very frothy (PE of 116) and i imagine after the next earnings the lower than expected cyber truck sales numbers may knock the price down and offer a good buying opportunity, but overall i am bullish and think the political nonsense is overblown and irrelevant.
About the political stuff, are you not concerned that the CEO is openly a Nazi. Do you sympathize with facist, Nazis and why do you think it is all overblown. I am interested to know genuinely.
People tend to buy cars not just for the needs but also to show them off their status. Tesla has had huge advantage over all other EV manufacturers and their revenue growth has stalled few years now, I think main reason is CEO has broken the brand. I think there is large percentage of customers that will not buy a Tesla.
Here is a Tesla FSD demo - I think its quite impressive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deWN8SZF7N8
I wonder if this is a real video, or another faked/staged 'demonstration' of FSD . . . like the 2016 one that only came to light when one of the engineers involved in the staging came clean?
About the political stuff, are you not concerned that the CEO is openly a Nazi. Do you sympathize with facist, Nazis and why do you think it is all overblown. I am interested to know genuinely.
People tend to buy cars not just for the needs but also to show them off their status. Tesla has had huge advantage over all other EV manufacturers and their revenue growth has stalled few years now, I think main reason is CEO has broken the brand. I think there is large percentage of customers that will not buy a Tesla.
They don't believe it.
He can support the AfD party in Germany.
He can throw up two Hitler salutes.
They just make excuses about how the richest man in the world, born in apartheid South Africa, just didn't know what that gesture meant.
Nothing will shake Tesla stock or his fans, so your investment is safe there.
i had to look up what you are talking about, apparently he made a weird hand gesture aka a salute. I don't believe he is a nazi/facist. I think he's just a extremely weird neurodivergent/autistic dude with the ultimate FU money who is speaking his mind, and honestly i think he should stop speaking, be quiet and work on his companies. He is alienating the people most likely to buy his cars, however, Tesla the business should be fine and continue to do well.
i had to look up what you are talking about, apparently he made a weird hand gesture aka a salute. I don't believe he is a nazi/facist. I think he's just a extremely weird neurodivergent/autistic dude with the ultimate FU money who is speaking his mind, and honestly i think he should stop speaking, be quiet and work on his companies. He is alienating the people most likely to buy his cars, however, Tesla the business should be fine and continue to do well.
Dude.
Look at the video and consider the context, including his recent actions.
That is mind bending. You say he is speaking his mind and he is speaking, enabling, signaling he is a Nazi but you don't think you believe him.About the political stuff, are you not concerned that the CEO is openly a Nazi. Do you sympathize with facist, Nazis and why do you think it is all overblown. I am interested to know genuinely.
People tend to buy cars not just for the needs but also to show them off their status. Tesla has had huge advantage over all other EV manufacturers and their revenue growth has stalled few years now, I think main reason is CEO has broken the brand. I think there is large percentage of customers that will not buy a Tesla.
They don't believe it.
He can support the AfD party in Germany.
He can throw up two Hitler salutes.
They just make excuses about how the richest man in the world, born in apartheid South Africa, just didn't know what that gesture meant.
Nothing will shake Tesla stock or his fans, so your investment is safe there.
i had to look up what you are talking about, apparently he made a weird hand gesture aka a salute. I don't believe he is a nazi/facist. I think he's just a extremely weird neurodivergent/autistic dude with the ultimate FU money who is speaking his mind, and honestly i think he should stop speaking, be quiet and work on his companies. He is alienating the people most likely to buy his cars, however, Tesla the business should be fine and continue to do well.
And honestly i am sad i posted here and wish i hadn't.
Before I watched the video, I was figuring that this was overblown silliness and a probably mistaken gesture. But watching the actions, I really can't understand another way to interpret Musk's actions. He very clearly and on purpose did a Nazi salute. It wasn't like a weird accident. He turned around and Nazi saluted the American flag a second time immediately after the first. My assumption is that this was a joke or some sort of grand scale trolling, but it definitely did happen and had to be purposeful.
Before I watched the video, I was figuring that this was overblown silliness and a probably mistaken gesture. But watching the actions, I really can't understand another way to interpret Musk's actions. He very clearly and on purpose did a Nazi salute. It wasn't like a weird accident. He turned around and Nazi saluted the American flag a second time immediately after the first. My assumption is that this was a joke or some sort of grand scale trolling, but it definitely did happen and had to be purposeful.
About the political stuff, are you not concerned that the CEO is openly a Nazi. Do you sympathize with facist, Nazis and why do you think it is all overblown. I am interested to know genuinely.
People tend to buy cars not just for the needs but also to show them off their status. Tesla has had huge advantage over all other EV manufacturers and their revenue growth has stalled few years now, I think main reason is CEO has broken the brand. I think there is large percentage of customers that will not buy a Tesla.
They don't believe it.
He can support the AfD party in Germany.
He can throw up two Hitler salutes.
They just make excuses about how the richest man in the world, born in apartheid South Africa, just didn't know what that gesture meant.
Nothing will shake Tesla stock or his fans, so your investment is safe there.
i had to look up what you are talking about, apparently he made a weird hand gesture aka a salute. I don't believe he is a nazi/facist. I think he's just a extremely weird neurodivergent/autistic dude with the ultimate FU money who is speaking his mind, and honestly i think he should stop speaking, be quiet and work on his companies. He is alienating the people most likely to buy his cars, however, Tesla the business should be fine and continue to do well.
And honestly i am sad i posted here and wish i hadn't.
Before I watched the video, I was figuring that this was overblown silliness and a probably mistaken gesture. But watching the actions, I really can't understand another way to interpret Musk's actions. He very clearly and on purpose did a Nazi salute. It wasn't like a weird accident. He turned around and Nazi saluted the American flag a second time immediately after the first. My assumption is that this was a joke or some sort of grand scale trolling, but it definitely did happen and had to be purposeful.
So chilling yet so true! This one post forced me to finally register after a dozen years of lurking - bravo ChpBstrd. I am old enough to remember and have personal and intimate experience with the Soviet system. Yes, the USA have now officially become a Russian style oligarchy but with far more effective means societal control and unmatched military power. This is the beginning of a new era.Welcome here!
I think the case for owning Tesla has shifted. Earnings growth, product appeal, or any supposed technical lead over competitors are now less important factors than the CEO and largest share owner being closely connected with the ruling party in post-democracy America.
With this newfound power in Musk's hands, Tesla and SpaceX will start winning government contracts and getting their flawed technology approved more easily than competitors. Foreign competitors and non-aligned domestic competitors will face a wave of red tape, denials, unexplainable bid losses, and an inability to win in the courts. Eventually, circumstances will be engineered where non-aligned producers could be forced to sell their assets to state-aligned enterprises like Tesla and SpaceX at fire-sale prices. TikTok was only the beginning of this consolidation of the means of production into the hands of ruling party oligarchs.
This line of thought won't make sense to anyone who still thinks the Democrats could somehow make a miraculous comeback, or who does not see the power of politically-affiliated social media as a propaganda machine which can intelligently target individual minds to bring entire populations to heel. To them, the semi-peaceful resolution of Trump's first term means the second term could only go the same way. If you can't see that the Democratic Party is dead for at least a generation, you probably can't make sense of the 2024 election either.
The issue is not the Trump administration, it's the collapse of the Democratic Party, fueled by conservative-owned social media and Democrats' own attitudes. That process is only continuing, as control over TikTok is consolidated under Elon Musk or Larry Ellison. Meta under Zuckerberg is now falling all over itself to show how it can align with the new form of government, ending fact-checking and diversity initiatives as X has done. The Stargate consortium announced by Trump represents a new corporate alignment with the ruling party, with the product being an AI that can cement control by the ruling party through control over the information supply, and which can put down any potential for revolt or attack through automated drone warfare.
Seen in this light, Tesla's or X's valuation in terms of cars or ads they sold last year is nearly irrelevant. Rather, their value lies in the power of being government-aligned favored corporations, which are destined to gain more control over their respective industries at the expense of their rivals during the next 20+ years of one-party rule. Growth won't come from better products, better efficiencies, or better marketing; it will come from government actions.
For example, imagine yourself as a Russian small investor in the Russian stock exchange, circa 2005. You can foresee the political future, and the collapse of meaningful democracy in your country. Would you want to own shares in companies whose CEOs are aligned with the United Russia party or their competitors who are not? Which shares will still have value in 2025?
He is alienating the people most likely to buy his cars, however, Tesla the business should be fine and continue to do well.Fairly substantial drop in sales in Europe in 2024 (down 60+% YoY in France, 75% in Spain) and you'd have to assume 2025 will be even worse based on his recent antics. He's destroying the Tesla brand outside the US.
And how long until China starts turning some screws? Tesla is, after all, a half-Chinese company run by the closest advisor to the U.S. president who just launched a second tariff war against China. There's nothing stopping China from applying a special internal tax just on Teslas or just slowly over regulating it. They could slowly run that factory out of business, and let a domestic producer take over. It would be fair play after the Trump administration's extortion on TikTok. If I was Xi, you better believe I'd be laying that on the negotiating table.He is alienating the people most likely to buy his cars, however, Tesla the business should be fine and continue to do well.Fairly substantial drop in sales in Europe in 2024 (down 60+% YoY in France, 75% in Spain) and you'd have to assume 2025 will be even worse based on his recent antics. He's destroying the Tesla brand outside the US.
I've been casually looking at Tesla's 2024 numbers. I don't plan to do a full stock analysis because I don't invest in individual stocks anymore.
Forward looking prospects seem to be further diverging from the stock price. Here's 2024 vs 2023:
1. Revenue up 0.9%
2. Cost of Goods sold up 1.4%
3. Gross Profit down 1.2% Lower gross profit on higher revenue isn't a good sign.
4. Operating Expense: up 10.5% (!!!)
5. Net Income down 52.5% (!!!)
Looking a few years back at Net Income, you can see it go from $5.2B to $12.6B to $15B, and now back down to $7.1B You can justify a growth premium when going from earnings of $5.2B to $15B over two years. It's harder to justify when going from $15B to $7B.
The Statement of Cash Flows is even more alarming. Capex grew at 27% in 2024, from $8.9B to $11.3B. That's going to create an additional ~$1B in depreciation expense in 2025 compared to 2024. Which means they need to generate an extra billion in contribution margin for 2025 just to keep Net Income flat.
I don't find that level of growth plausible. Any revenue growth they manage to squeeze out is going to be eaten by their ever-increasing OPEX and CAPEX. They should be showing revenue growth well into the double-digits to justify their rate of spend increase.
I've been casually looking at Tesla's 2024 numbers. I don't plan to do a full stock analysis because I don't invest in individual stocks anymore.
Forward looking prospects seem to be further diverging from the stock price. Here's 2024 vs 2023:
1. Revenue up 0.9%
2. Cost of Goods sold up 1.4%
3. Gross Profit down 1.2% Lower gross profit on higher revenue isn't a good sign.
4. Operating Expense: up 10.5% (!!!)
5. Net Income down 52.5% (!!!)
Looking a few years back at Net Income, you can see it go from $5.2B to $12.6B to $15B, and now back down to $7.1B You can justify a growth premium when going from earnings of $5.2B to $15B over two years. It's harder to justify when going from $15B to $7B.
The Statement of Cash Flows is even more alarming. Capex grew at 27% in 2024, from $8.9B to $11.3B. That's going to create an additional ~$1B in depreciation expense in 2025 compared to 2024. Which means they need to generate an extra billion in contribution margin for 2025 just to keep Net Income flat.
I don't find that level of growth plausible. Any revenue growth they manage to squeeze out is going to be eaten by their ever-increasing OPEX and CAPEX. They should be showing revenue growth well into the double-digits to justify their rate of spend increase.
Did you factor in getting massive government contracts for teslas due to being the bestie of the Pres?
Did you factor in a pissed off China holding the Shanghai gigafactory for ransom in exchange for TikTok’s stolen equity and reduced tariffs. What happens to TSLA when half their assets are expropriated or regulated out of business?I've been casually looking at Tesla's 2024 numbers. I don't plan to do a full stock analysis because I don't invest in individual stocks anymore.
Forward looking prospects seem to be further diverging from the stock price. Here's 2024 vs 2023:
1. Revenue up 0.9%
2. Cost of Goods sold up 1.4%
3. Gross Profit down 1.2% Lower gross profit on higher revenue isn't a good sign.
4. Operating Expense: up 10.5% (!!!)
5. Net Income down 52.5% (!!!)
Looking a few years back at Net Income, you can see it go from $5.2B to $12.6B to $15B, and now back down to $7.1B You can justify a growth premium when going from earnings of $5.2B to $15B over two years. It's harder to justify when going from $15B to $7B.
The Statement of Cash Flows is even more alarming. Capex grew at 27% in 2024, from $8.9B to $11.3B. That's going to create an additional ~$1B in depreciation expense in 2025 compared to 2024. Which means they need to generate an extra billion in contribution margin for 2025 just to keep Net Income flat.
I don't find that level of growth plausible. Any revenue growth they manage to squeeze out is going to be eaten by their ever-increasing OPEX and CAPEX. They should be showing revenue growth well into the double-digits to justify their rate of spend increase.
Did you factor in getting massive government contracts for teslas due to being the bestie of the Pres?
I am going delve into sort of my conspiracy theory. But it is not unimaginable. Among all the outrageous things he says and does I don't think he is ever critical or goes against these countries. I think he is scared of them.Did you factor in a pissed off China holding the Shanghai gigafactory for ransom in exchange for TikTok’s stolen equity and reduced tariffs. What happens to TSLA when half their assets are expropriated or regulated out of business?I've been casually looking at Tesla's 2024 numbers. I don't plan to do a full stock analysis because I don't invest in individual stocks anymore.
Forward looking prospects seem to be further diverging from the stock price. Here's 2024 vs 2023:
1. Revenue up 0.9%
2. Cost of Goods sold up 1.4%
3. Gross Profit down 1.2% Lower gross profit on higher revenue isn't a good sign.
4. Operating Expense: up 10.5% (!!!)
5. Net Income down 52.5% (!!!)
Looking a few years back at Net Income, you can see it go from $5.2B to $12.6B to $15B, and now back down to $7.1B You can justify a growth premium when going from earnings of $5.2B to $15B over two years. It's harder to justify when going from $15B to $7B.
The Statement of Cash Flows is even more alarming. Capex grew at 27% in 2024, from $8.9B to $11.3B. That's going to create an additional ~$1B in depreciation expense in 2025 compared to 2024. Which means they need to generate an extra billion in contribution margin for 2025 just to keep Net Income flat.
I don't find that level of growth plausible. Any revenue growth they manage to squeeze out is going to be eaten by their ever-increasing OPEX and CAPEX. They should be showing revenue growth well into the double-digits to justify their rate of spend increase.
Did you factor in getting massive government contracts for teslas due to being the bestie of the Pres?
Which raises the question: Maybe Musk got into the bromance with Trump just to have some leverage at that critical moment, which he foresaw, to influence Trump to give into the Chinese demands at the point they threatened his factory.
Applying Occam's Razor, I think we can explain Musk's behavior as simple self-interest. When he invested in China, he became compromised by the risk of the government turning against him, which could cause his company to lose a very expensive factory, access to an extensive manufacturing outsourcing network, and access to the world's largest market. So no, Musk is not going to criticize the Chinese government. Plus he is aware of his value to China as a close Trump advisor. China must play this leverage carefully. I.e. on the day they shut out Tesla, they've lost their leverage on Musk. Musk's movement into government is supposed to stop this from ever happening, because it will never be in China's interest unless the leverage somehow exceeds the worth of Musk's relationship with the Chinese regime.I am going delve into sort of my conspiracy theory. But it is not unimaginable. Among all the outrageous things he says and does I don't think he is ever critical or goes against these countries. I think he is scared of them.Did you factor in a pissed off China holding the Shanghai gigafactory for ransom in exchange for TikTok’s stolen equity and reduced tariffs. What happens to TSLA when half their assets are expropriated or regulated out of business?I've been casually looking at Tesla's 2024 numbers. I don't plan to do a full stock analysis because I don't invest in individual stocks anymore.
Forward looking prospects seem to be further diverging from the stock price. Here's 2024 vs 2023:
1. Revenue up 0.9%
2. Cost of Goods sold up 1.4%
3. Gross Profit down 1.2% Lower gross profit on higher revenue isn't a good sign.
4. Operating Expense: up 10.5% (!!!)
5. Net Income down 52.5% (!!!)
Looking a few years back at Net Income, you can see it go from $5.2B to $12.6B to $15B, and now back down to $7.1B You can justify a growth premium when going from earnings of $5.2B to $15B over two years. It's harder to justify when going from $15B to $7B.
The Statement of Cash Flows is even more alarming. Capex grew at 27% in 2024, from $8.9B to $11.3B. That's going to create an additional ~$1B in depreciation expense in 2025 compared to 2024. Which means they need to generate an extra billion in contribution margin for 2025 just to keep Net Income flat.
I don't find that level of growth plausible. Any revenue growth they manage to squeeze out is going to be eaten by their ever-increasing OPEX and CAPEX. They should be showing revenue growth well into the double-digits to justify their rate of spend increase.
Did you factor in getting massive government contracts for teslas due to being the bestie of the Pres?
Which raises the question: Maybe Musk got into the bromance with Trump just to have some leverage at that critical moment, which he foresaw, to influence Trump to give into the Chinese demands at the point they threatened his factory.
What if Muskrat is an agent of China/Russia. What if his stock is propped up by these countries when it is in trouble. We know that he and Trump have had direct connection to Putin and had regular conversations.
What if he is part of their long term campaign against US. He is perfectly placed. He is the richest person in the world and Trump loves money and support from him.
I am going delve into sort of my conspiracy theory. But it is not unimaginable. Among all the outrageous things he says and does I don't think he is ever critical or goes against these countries. I think he is scared of them.Did you factor in a pissed off China holding the Shanghai gigafactory for ransom in exchange for TikTok’s stolen equity and reduced tariffs. What happens to TSLA when half their assets are expropriated or regulated out of business?I've been casually looking at Tesla's 2024 numbers. I don't plan to do a full stock analysis because I don't invest in individual stocks anymore.
Forward looking prospects seem to be further diverging from the stock price. Here's 2024 vs 2023:
1. Revenue up 0.9%
2. Cost of Goods sold up 1.4%
3. Gross Profit down 1.2% Lower gross profit on higher revenue isn't a good sign.
4. Operating Expense: up 10.5% (!!!)
5. Net Income down 52.5% (!!!)
Looking a few years back at Net Income, you can see it go from $5.2B to $12.6B to $15B, and now back down to $7.1B You can justify a growth premium when going from earnings of $5.2B to $15B over two years. It's harder to justify when going from $15B to $7B.
The Statement of Cash Flows is even more alarming. Capex grew at 27% in 2024, from $8.9B to $11.3B. That's going to create an additional ~$1B in depreciation expense in 2025 compared to 2024. Which means they need to generate an extra billion in contribution margin for 2025 just to keep Net Income flat.
I don't find that level of growth plausible. Any revenue growth they manage to squeeze out is going to be eaten by their ever-increasing OPEX and CAPEX. They should be showing revenue growth well into the double-digits to justify their rate of spend increase.
Did you factor in getting massive government contracts for teslas due to being the bestie of the Pres?
Which raises the question: Maybe Musk got into the bromance with Trump just to have some leverage at that critical moment, which he foresaw, to influence Trump to give into the Chinese demands at the point they threatened his factory.
What if Muskrat is an agent of China/Russia. What if his stock is propped up by these countries when it is in trouble. We know that he and Trump have had direct connection to Putin and had regular conversations.
What if he is part of their long term campaign against US. He is perfectly placed. He is the richest person in the world and Trump loves money and support from him.
It remains unknown why Trump is so deferential to Putin. There is the theory that Putin possesses a prostitute pissing video or similar kompromat. Even in this case, it would be less a conspiracy and more simple extortion.
It remains unknown why Trump is so deferential to Putin. There is the theory that Putin possesses a prostitute pissing video or similar kompromat. Even in this case, it would be less a conspiracy and more simple extortion.
The more I'm exposed to Trump, the less likely I find the kompromat theory.
That kind of shit works basically due to a sense of shame or a sense of fear of repercussions. Trump has no reason to feel shame, ever. The people who support him would continue to support him no matter what he does - murder, rape, racism, fascist comments . . . he has a total free pass. Trump also has no reason to fear legal repercussions. He owns the highest court in the land, and has easily managed to make all of his illegal actions go away without consequence. So like . . . what kind of compromising stuff could exist that would actually cause Trump to do stuff?
I think it's far more likely that Trump was just paid off in some massive way by Putin.
It remains unknown why Trump is so deferential to Putin. There is the theory that Putin possesses a prostitute pissing video or similar kompromat. Even in this case, it would be less a conspiracy and more simple extortion.
The more I'm exposed to Trump, the less likely I find the kompromat theory.
That kind of shit works basically due to a sense of shame or a sense of fear of repercussions. Trump has no reason to feel shame, ever. The people who support him would continue to support him no matter what he does - murder, rape, racism, fascist comments . . . he has a total free pass. Trump also has no reason to fear legal repercussions. He owns the highest court in the land, and has easily managed to make all of his illegal actions go away without consequence. So like . . . what kind of compromising stuff could exist that would actually cause Trump to do stuff?
I think it's far more likely that Trump was just paid off in some massive way by Putin.
Yeah. I agree, now.
He admires him, too.
This is why I say the only one who can save us from Trump is Trump. This is who we’ve got in charge and we have to use strategies that have been proven to work. Ukraine just did that with the promise to let USA extract minerals (from the Russian-held territory, LOL). Flattery, novelty, pomp, distraction… these are the things that so far have worked.
I also dislike it when we say he’s experienced no legal repercussions. He has 34 felonies and hundreds of millions in fines. Many of his scams were shut down. It’s just that true justice works slowly, and we’ve never ever dealt with a criminal acting on this scale. The people who have prosecuted him to date are brave heroes.
It remains unknown why Trump is so deferential to Putin. There is the theory that Putin possesses a prostitute pissing video or similar kompromat. Even in this case, it would be less a conspiracy and more simple extortion.
The more I'm exposed to Trump, the less likely I find the kompromat theory.
That kind of shit works basically due to a sense of shame or a sense of fear of repercussions. Trump has no reason to feel shame, ever. The people who support him would continue to support him no matter what he does - murder, rape, racism, fascist comments . . . he has a total free pass. Trump also has no reason to fear legal repercussions. He owns the highest court in the land, and has easily managed to make all of his illegal actions go away without consequence. So like . . . what kind of compromising stuff could exist that would actually cause Trump to do stuff?
I think it's far more likely that Trump was just paid off in some massive way by Putin.
Yeah. I agree, now.
He admires him, too.
This is why I say the only one who can save us from Trump is Trump. This is who we’ve got in charge and we have to use strategies that have been proven to work. Ukraine just did that with the promise to let USA extract minerals (from the Russian-held territory, LOL). Flattery, novelty, pomp, distraction… these are the things that so far have worked.
I also dislike it when we say he’s experienced no legal repercussions. He has 34 felonies and hundreds of millions in fines. Many of his scams were shut down. It’s just that true justice works slowly, and we’ve never ever dealt with a criminal acting on this scale. The people who have prosecuted him to date are brave heroes.
No legal repercussions of note (to Trump or me). If Trump wasn't a wealthy man with connections, he would have spent years doing time.
Before I watched the video, I was figuring that this was overblown silliness and a probably mistaken gesture. But watching the actions, I really can't understand another way to interpret Musk's actions. He very clearly and on purpose did a Nazi salute. It wasn't like a weird accident. He turned around and Nazi saluted the American flag a second time immediately after the first. My assumption is that this was a joke or some sort of grand scale trolling, but it definitely did happen and had to be purposeful.
Musk could put all this to bed by issuing simple statement along the lines of:
At the rally, I made a hand gesture which some people unfortunately and mistakenly connected with a Nazi salute. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I abhor Nazi-ism in all its forms and condemn those groups who support its ideals.
But he hasn't. Instead he responded with a silly strawman argument. The reason he hasn't is is simple: It was a Nazi salute. We know from his history of public statements he has sympathy for white power and extremist right-wing organizations.
I think the case for owning Tesla has shifted. Earnings growth, product appeal, or any supposed technical lead over competitors are now less important factors than the CEO and largest share owner being closely connected with the ruling party in post-democracy America.
With this newfound power in Musk's hands, Tesla and SpaceX will start winning government contracts and getting their flawed technology approved more easily than competitors. Foreign competitors and non-aligned domestic competitors will face a wave of red tape, denials, unexplainable bid losses, and an inability to win in the courts. Eventually, circumstances will be engineered where non-aligned producers could be forced to sell their assets to state-aligned enterprises like Tesla and SpaceX at fire-sale prices. TikTok was only the beginning of this consolidation of the means of production into the hands of ruling party oligarchs.
This line of thought won't make sense to anyone who still thinks the Democrats could somehow make a miraculous comeback, or who does not see the power of politically-affiliated social media as a propaganda machine which can intelligently target individual minds to bring entire populations to heel. To them, the semi-peaceful resolution of Trump's first term means the second term could only go the same way. If you can't see that the Democratic Party is dead for at least a generation, you probably can't make sense of the 2024 election either.
The issue is not the Trump administration, it's the collapse of the Democratic Party, fueled by conservative-owned social media and Democrats' own attitudes. That process is only continuing, as control over TikTok is consolidated under Elon Musk or Larry Ellison. Meta under Zuckerberg is now falling all over itself to show how it can align with the new form of government, ending fact-checking and diversity initiatives as X has done. The Stargate consortium announced by Trump represents a new corporate alignment with the ruling party, with the product being an AI that can cement control by the ruling party through control over the information supply, and which can put down any potential for revolt or attack through automated drone warfare.
Seen in this light, Tesla's or X's valuation in terms of cars or ads they sold last year is nearly irrelevant. Rather, their value lies in the power of being government-aligned favored corporations, which are destined to gain more control over their respective industries at the expense of their rivals during the next 20+ years of one-party rule. Growth won't come from better products, better efficiencies, or better marketing; it will come from government actions.
For example, imagine yourself as a Russian small investor in the Russian stock exchange, circa 2005. You can foresee the political future, and the collapse of meaningful democracy in your country. Would you want to own shares in companies whose CEOs are aligned with the United Russia party or their competitors who are not? Which shares will still have value in 2025?
It is baffling to me how the leader of an electric car company (with factories in China), becomes the focal point of radical conservatism. More than half of Tesla cars are made in China. A trade war is not going to make Tesla great again, but maybe the plan is to close the Chinese "Gigafactory" and bring it to the US? I can't make sense of any of this, especially when electric cars are viewed as a positive response to climate change (the science that conservatives dismiss).
But they export to Canada, not the US.
Before I watched the video, I was figuring that this was overblown silliness and a probably mistaken gesture. But watching the actions, I really can't understand another way to interpret Musk's actions. He very clearly and on purpose did a Nazi salute. It wasn't like a weird accident. He turned around and Nazi saluted the American flag a second time immediately after the first. My assumption is that this was a joke or some sort of grand scale trolling, but it definitely did happen and had to be purposeful.
Musk could put all this to bed by issuing simple statement along the lines of:
At the rally, I made a hand gesture which some people unfortunately and mistakenly connected with a Nazi salute. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I abhor Nazi-ism in all its forms and condemn those groups who support its ideals.
But he hasn't. Instead he responded with a silly strawman argument. The reason he hasn't is is simple: It was a Nazi salute. We know from his history of public statements he has sympathy for white power and extremist right-wing organizations.
Musk has visited Israel after the horrific events of Oct 7th and expressed solidarity with the people of Israel and the families of the victims many times - this is not something a neo-Nazi would do. It was genuine and it's not something he had to do. He is no doubt a right-leaning person but to say he's a neo-Nazi based on this "salute" is nonsensical. Even if he'd issue a public statement clarifying the meaning of this salute, people like you would find another reason why he's still a neo-Nazi.
Before I watched the video, I was figuring that this was overblown silliness and a probably mistaken gesture. But watching the actions, I really can't understand another way to interpret Musk's actions. He very clearly and on purpose did a Nazi salute. It wasn't like a weird accident. He turned around and Nazi saluted the American flag a second time immediately after the first. My assumption is that this was a joke or some sort of grand scale trolling, but it definitely did happen and had to be purposeful.
Musk could put all this to bed by issuing simple statement along the lines of:
At the rally, I made a hand gesture which some people unfortunately and mistakenly connected with a Nazi salute. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I abhor Nazi-ism in all its forms and condemn those groups who support its ideals.
But he hasn't. Instead he responded with a silly strawman argument. The reason he hasn't is is simple: It was a Nazi salute. We know from his history of public statements he has sympathy for white power and extremist right-wing organizations.
Musk has visited Israel after the horrific events of Oct 7th and expressed solidarity with the people of Israel and the families of the victims many times - this is not something a neo-Nazi would do. It was genuine and it's not something he had to do. He is no doubt a right-leaning person but to say he's a neo-Nazi based on this "salute" is nonsensical. Even if he'd issue a public statement clarifying the meaning of this salute, people like you would find another reason why he's still a neo-Nazi.
I think that maybe you misread the posts that were quoted. There was no claim made that Musk was a neo-Nazi, only discussion that he clearly and purposely used a Nazi salute. The Nazis killed a lot of Jewish people when Hitler was in power. This wasn't done because of the religion or people - it was done because they were an easy to persecute minority group. It was an easy way to focus right wing hatred, and focusing that hatred was an easy path to power.
Israel loves Trump. Their ultra-nationalist far right government has been handily winning a more than half century old religious war with the people who used to live on the land that the Israelis now call home. Israel has set up an apartheid system where Palestinians are regularly abused by Israelis, similar to the kind of apartheid system that Musk grew up with in South Africa. Trump and Musk are fully supporting Israel (including the ethnic cleansing parts) and have a lot in common with the administration, so I'm not at all surprised that he was sympathetic to their cause.
FWIW, I don't believe that Musk hates Jews or has plans to put Jewish people in a concentration camp. I do believe that he's a fan of Hitler's rise to power through persecution and scapegoating. Musk's smart enough to know that racism is alive and well in the US, and that many folks who support both him and Trump are ambivalent or actively cheered up by these types of racist dog whistles.
A lot of the modern Nazi-ish type movements have very little to do with anti-semitism. The similarities extend to how these groups treat outsiders more than which outsiders are selected.
"Tesla CFO Vaibhav Taneja, Board Chair Robyn Denholm, and board member Kimbal Musk — the brother of CEO Elon Musk — sold shares of the electric vehicle company this week, collectively selling tens of millions in company stock, according to recent securities filings.
Taneja, a company veteran who took the CFO seat in 2023, sold approximately 7,000 shares valued at approximately $2.8 million on Monday, while Denhalm, also Monday sold 112,390 shares for about $43 million, according to company filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission Monday. Kimbal Musk, meanwhile, sold approximately $27 million in shares on Thursday, according to another filing."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-cfo-board-members-offload-142507093.html
Is this a result of general tesla nonsense...or a reaction to Musk's new presidential notoriety?
He is no doubt a right-leaning person but to say he's a neo-Nazi based on this "salute" is nonsensical. Even if he'd issue a public statement clarifying the meaning of this salute, people like you would find another reason why he's still a neo-Nazi.I don't think he is a literal neo-nazi, that clearly isn't true. But he has repeatedly expressed support for politicians (and violent criminals) with a neo-nazi past, in the UK and Germany. So there is an element of judging him by the company he keeps.
The Nazis killed a lot of Jewish people when Hitler was in power. This wasn't done because of the religion or people - it was done because they were an easy to persecute minority group. It was an easy way to focus right wing hatred, and focusing that hatred was an easy path to power.Hitler was racist long before he started WWII. But he only became vegetarian two years before he invaded Poland. Coincidence? /s
Before I watched the video, I was figuring that this was overblown silliness and a probably mistaken gesture. But watching the actions, I really can't understand another way to interpret Musk's actions. He very clearly and on purpose did a Nazi salute. It wasn't like a weird accident. He turned around and Nazi saluted the American flag a second time immediately after the first. My assumption is that this was a joke or some sort of grand scale trolling, but it definitely did happen and had to be purposeful.
Musk could put all this to bed by issuing simple statement along the lines of:
At the rally, I made a hand gesture which some people unfortunately and mistakenly connected with a Nazi salute. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I abhor Nazi-ism in all its forms and condemn those groups who support its ideals.
But he hasn't. Instead he responded with a silly strawman argument. The reason he hasn't is is simple: It was a Nazi salute. We know from his history of public statements he has sympathy for white power and extremist right-wing organizations.
Musk has visited Israel after the horrific events of Oct 7th and expressed solidarity with the people of Israel and the families of the victims many times - this is not something a neo-Nazi would do. It was genuine and it's not something he had to do. He is no doubt a right-leaning person but to say he's a neo-Nazi based on this "salute" is nonsensical. Even if he'd issue a public statement clarifying the meaning of this salute, people like you would find another reason why he's still a neo-Nazi.
Elon Musk supports AfD, widely considered a neo-Nazi party. His salute, in isolation, might be called an "awkward gesture" (according to the Jewish Anti-Defamation League). But combined with his support of neo-Nazi parties in Germany, it looks a lot more like a Nazi salute.
"Elon Musk speaks at Germany’s AfD campaign launch as thousands protest the far-right party"
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/25/europe/elon-musk-germany-afd-protests-intl-latam/index.html
Musk claimed that “civil war is inevitable” in response to a post blaming the violent demonstrations on the effects of “mass migration and open borders.”
At the counter-protest in Sheffield later Wednesday evening, one of the speakers criticized Musk’s comments. “The richest man in the world is stirring the pot for a race war,” he said.
Elon Musk supports AfD, widely considered a neo-Nazi party. His salute, in isolation, might be called an "awkward gesture" (according to the Jewish Anti-Defamation League). But combined with his support of neo-Nazi parties in Germany, it looks a lot more like a Nazi salute.
"Elon Musk speaks at Germany’s AfD campaign launch as thousands protest the far-right party"
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/25/europe/elon-musk-germany-afd-protests-intl-latam/index.html
Also, when there were violent right-wing anti-immigrant riots in the UK last summer, Musk publicly sided with the rioters:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/07/uk/uk-far-right-counter-protests-intl/index.htmlQuoteMusk claimed that “civil war is inevitable” in response to a post blaming the violent demonstrations on the effects of “mass migration and open borders.”
At the counter-protest in Sheffield later Wednesday evening, one of the speakers criticized Musk’s comments. “The richest man in the world is stirring the pot for a race war,” he said.
Musk has visited Israel after the horrific events of Oct 7th and expressed solidarity with the people of Israel and the families of the victims many times - this is not something a neo-Nazi would do. It was genuine and it's not something he had to do. He is no doubt a right-leaning person but to say he's a neo-Nazi based on this "salute" is nonsensical. Even if he'd issue a public statement clarifying the meaning of this salute, people like you would find another reason why he's still a neo-Nazi.
Musk has visited Israel after the horrific events of Oct 7th and expressed solidarity with the people of Israel and the families of the victims many times - this is not something a neo-Nazi would do. It was genuine and it's not something he had to do. He is no doubt a right-leaning person but to say he's a neo-Nazi based on this "salute" is nonsensical. Even if he'd issue a public statement clarifying the meaning of this salute, people like you would find another reason why he's still a neo-Nazi.
People like me? You mean, people who make conclusions based on facts and observations of evidence? No, you are quite mistaken.
the whole point of the thread, is Tesla a good investment is being hijacked by Musk's participation in the 2024 electionYou say "hijacked". I'd say "determined".
It feels like everyone is focusing on the CEO and not the company itself, the whole point of the thread, is Tesla a good investment is being hijacked by Musk's participation in the 2024 election, his work at DOGE and public appearances related to the election and DOGE. There are plenty of other Musk is the anti-christ threads, go bash him there. Can we keep this thread about the company?
And the above is inappropriate
the whole point of the thread, is Tesla a good investment is being hijacked by Musk's participation in the 2024 electionYou say "hijacked". I'd say "determined".
Discussion of the CEO is entirely on-topic when his antics are driving the company's loss of sales/reputation outside (and inside) the US.
So how much of the decline in Tesla sales in Europe is driven by Musk's reputation and how much by the fact the EU has much lower tariffs on Chinese EVs* than either the USA or Canada where Tesla sales are declining by much smaller amounts that, for example, Spain?
If people being upset about Musk were the primary driver, I would think Canada would show bigger declines than Spain rather than vice versa.
*And essentially none on imported Chinese plug-in hybrids.
Do you own Tesla Stock? If yes, are you unhappy with its performance?
The stock is up 80+% in the last year,
If you don't own the stock, why are you here? what are you trying to prove?
Its a free country, invest how you want, but there is no denying long term investors have done well.
How many Tesla vehicles have been sold in Canada since the tariff threat?
Tesla does not release sales figures for Canada, but rebate data from Transport Canada’s zero-emission vehicle program suggests about 33,000 Teslas received rebates in the nine months to Dec. 31.
On a per-month basis, that is down about 15 per cent compared to the approximately 50,000 Teslas that received the rebates in the full 2023-24 fiscal year.
Do you own Tesla Stock? If yes, are you unhappy with its performance?
The stock is up 80+% in the last year,
If you don't own the stock, why are you here? what are you trying to prove?
Its a free country, invest how you want, but there is no denying long term investors have done well.
So how much of the decline in Tesla sales in Europe is driven by Musk's reputation and how much by the fact the EU has much lower tariffs on Chinese EVs* than either the USA or Canada where Tesla sales are declining by much smaller amounts that, for example, Spain?
If people being upset about Musk were the primary driver, I would think Canada would show bigger declines than Spain rather than vice versa.
*And essentially none on imported Chinese plug-in hybrids.
Canada buys 30x more Teslas than Spain's peak buying, despite having a smaller population.
"Tesla does not release sales figures for Canada, but rebate data from Transport Canada’s zero-emission vehicle program suggests about 33,000 Teslas received rebates in the nine months to Dec. 31."
https://www.ctvnews.ca/calgary/article/i-bought-this-before-we-knew-elon-was-crazy-tesla-owners-distance-themselves-from-brand/
"Negative figures were recorded in Spain, where registrations fell from 1,094 to 269 (-75.4%), and in France (from 3,118 to 1,141, -63.4%), but Tesla also fared badly in the Netherlands (from 1,610 to 926, -42%) and Denmark (from 763 to 451, -40.9%)"
https://www.motor1.com/news/749660/tesla-sales-results-january-2025/
Canada buys 30x more Teslas than Spain's peak buying, despite having a smaller population.
"Tesla does not release sales figures for Canada, but rebate data from Transport Canada’s zero-emission vehicle program suggests about 33,000 Teslas received rebates in the nine months to Dec. 31."
https://www.ctvnews.ca/calgary/article/i-bought-this-before-we-knew-elon-was-crazy-tesla-owners-distance-themselves-from-brand/
"Negative figures were recorded in Spain, where registrations fell from 1,094 to 269 (-75.4%), and in France (from 3,118 to 1,141, -63.4%), but Tesla also fared badly in the Netherlands (from 1,610 to 926, -42%) and Denmark (from 763 to 451, -40.9%)"
https://www.motor1.com/news/749660/tesla-sales-results-january-2025/
Your claim that Canada buys 30x more Teslas than Spain is false.
The numbers you quoted are for nine months of Tesla purchases in Canada (33,000) but only for one month of Tesla purchases in Spain, specifically January 2024 (1,094).
So how much of the decline in Tesla sales in Europe is driven by Musk's reputation and how much by the fact the EU has much lower tariffs on Chinese EVs* than either the USA or Canada where Tesla sales are declining by much smaller amounts that, for example, Spain?
If people being upset about Musk were the primary driver, I would think Canada would show bigger declines than Spain rather than vice versa.
*And essentially none on imported Chinese plug-in hybrids.
Your use of the word "amounts" is mistaken. Canada buys 30x more Teslas than Spain's peak buying, despite having a smaller population.
"Tesla does not release sales figures for Canada, but rebate data from Transport Canada’s zero-emission vehicle program suggests about 33,000 Teslas received rebates in the nine months to Dec. 31."
https://www.ctvnews.ca/calgary/article/i-bought-this-before-we-knew-elon-was-crazy-tesla-owners-distance-themselves-from-brand/
"Negative figures were recorded in Spain, where registrations fell from 1,094 to 269 (-75.4%), and in France (from 3,118 to 1,141, -63.4%), but Tesla also fared badly in the Netherlands (from 1,610 to 926, -42%) and Denmark (from 763 to 451, -40.9%)"
https://www.motor1.com/news/749660/tesla-sales-results-january-2025/
Do you own Tesla Stock? If yes, are you unhappy with its performance?
The stock is up 80+% in the last year,
If you don't own the stock, why are you here? what are you trying to prove?
Its a free country, invest how you want, but there is no denying long term investors have done well.
As an investor, I am always looking at both the companies I own and other companies. I want to know if I own a good portfolio, or if there are better opportunities. Tesla is certainly in the news, and attracts a lot of attention.
Disclosure: I came close to buying some share last May, but chose not to.
Also, the thread is "Is Tesla a good investment?" not "Was Tesla a good investment?" Forward looking.
Do you own Tesla Stock? If yes, are you unhappy with its performance?
The stock is up 80+% in the last year,
If you don't own the stock, why are you here? what are you trying to prove?
Its a free country, invest how you want, but there is no denying long term investors have done well.
The title of the thread asks a question. It is entirely reasonable to look at the investment thesis from all sides when trying to answer that question.
The answer to that question doesn't include "the stock is up 80+% in the last year." Chasing last year's hot stock is a classic rookie investing mistake. Examining if Tesla is likely to be a profitable company, and how profitable--and therefore continue to be a hot stock--is something serious investors should consider when decided to add or trim positions.
Tesla has a P/E of about 166, which as we all know means there is a high price premium for anticipated future growth. If Tesla were to become a mature company in say 12 years and have a more typical P/E of about 15, that means earnings would have to grow at a CAGR of 22% a year, with the price remaining constant.
But earnings are falling (plummeting more accurately). Margins are falling. Market share is falling. Sales are falling. None of those are good if you need to maintain a stratospheric P/E ratio.
Tesla's board made Musk by far the highest paid CEO of all time. Their rationale was that Musk was central to Tesla's success and enormous stock grants were required to keep him focused on Tesla.
Well, he's not focused on Tesla. He's focused on Twitter and Doge. So if Musk's focus is central to Tesla's success and he's not focused on Tesla...
Agreed, past performance is not indicative of future results, and i am not saying that. BUT, this thread was started in 2018 and over that time Tesla stock is up something like 1,500+%. 2022 was the only year it didnt beat the SP500. Considering the time horizon of this thread, I am saying may times over the last 7 years it was a good investment, making it a good investment at that moment in time. I think i said this before, i concede there are likely rocky times ahead in the near term, but i am bullish over the next 5 years.
Yes, this is called a pre-mortem. A pre-mortem is imagining your (investment) decision has failed, and coming up with reasons why. Backcasting is its complement, imagining success and detailing why. Fleshing out those scenarios can help you make a better decision, and can help you evaluate developments objectively as you hold the stock.Agreed, past performance is not indicative of future results, and i am not saying that. BUT, this thread was started in 2018 and over that time Tesla stock is up something like 1,500+%. 2022 was the only year it didnt beat the SP500. Considering the time horizon of this thread, I am saying may times over the last 7 years it was a good investment, making it a good investment at that moment in time. I think i said this before, i concede there are likely rocky times ahead in the near term, but i am bullish over the next 5 years.
What specifically would convince you that your bullishness is misplaced? If an investment thesis isn't falsifiable then it's not really a thesis. My motivation here is not to win an argument, you don't even have to respond with an answer. TSLA is currently completely detached from fundamentals, so I think it's a good idea for investors to have clearly defined parameters for when to get out.
"Tesla Sales fall 45% in Europe amid Musk’s political meddling"
"EV sales rose by 37 per cent for the overall industry"
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2025/02/25/tesla-sales-fall-45-in-europe-amid-musks-political-meddling/ (https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2025/02/25/tesla-sales-fall-45-in-europe-amid-musks-political-meddling/)
I'm sure some of this - maybe half - is related to the lack of new and appealing products. The European mind cannot comprehend the Cybertruck, although in fairness neither can most American minds. Meanwhile the Model Y just turned old enough to start kindergarten, and the Model 3 - perhaps the only Tesla semi-practical in Europe - is a 2017 design. Despite $4.5B in R&D spending last year and another almost $4B last year, TSLA still has nothing new for sale. Hyundai spend less than half as much and launched or redesigned (https://www.motor1.com/news/743317/hyundai-upcoming-new-models-2025/) 4 EV models for 2025.
Perhaps we need a Department Of Tesla Efficiency to figure out what sort of fraud and waste is going on in research and marketing at TSLA?
"Tesla Sales fall 45% in Europe amid Musk’s political meddling"
"EV sales rose by 37 per cent for the overall industry"
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2025/02/25/tesla-sales-fall-45-in-europe-amid-musks-political-meddling/ (https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2025/02/25/tesla-sales-fall-45-in-europe-amid-musks-political-meddling/)
I'm sure some of this - maybe half - is related to the lack of new and appealing products. The European mind cannot comprehend the Cybertruck, although in fairness neither can most American minds. Meanwhile the Model Y just turned old enough to start kindergarten, and the Model 3 - perhaps the only Tesla semi-practical in Europe - is a 2017 design. Despite $4.5B in R&D spending last year and another almost $4B last year, TSLA still has nothing new for sale. Hyundai spend less than half as much and launched or redesigned (https://www.motor1.com/news/743317/hyundai-upcoming-new-models-2025/) 4 EV models for 2025.
Perhaps we need a Department Of Tesla Efficiency to figure out what sort of fraud and waste is going on in research and marketing at TSLA?
Do enough Europeans care about Musk's political involvement in the US to have this impact? I think the easier answer is the onslaught of competitive (and often cheaper) Chinese EVs that are now available in Europe.
The diagnosis comes directly from a European media source, which I think counts for something.I know that a lot of them care about Musk's political involvement in Europe. Musk has now supported multiple far right groups with a fascist/authoritarian/neo-nazi bent."Tesla Sales fall 45% in Europe amid Musk’s political meddling"Do enough Europeans care about Musk's political involvement in the US to have this impact? I think the easier answer is the onslaught of competitive (and often cheaper) Chinese EVs that are now available in Europe.
"EV sales rose by 37 per cent for the overall industry"
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2025/02/25/tesla-sales-fall-45-in-europe-amid-musks-political-meddling/ (https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2025/02/25/tesla-sales-fall-45-in-europe-amid-musks-political-meddling/)
I'm sure some of this - maybe half - is related to the lack of new and appealing products. The European mind cannot comprehend the Cybertruck, although in fairness neither can most American minds. Meanwhile the Model Y just turned old enough to start kindergarten, and the Model 3 - perhaps the only Tesla semi-practical in Europe - is a 2017 design. Despite $4.5B in R&D spending last year and another almost $4B last year, TSLA still has nothing new for sale. Hyundai spend less than half as much and launched or redesigned (https://www.motor1.com/news/743317/hyundai-upcoming-new-models-2025/) 4 EV models for 2025.
Perhaps we need a Department Of Tesla Efficiency to figure out what sort of fraud and waste is going on in research and marketing at TSLA?
I'm seriously considering breaking my rule on not investing in individual stocks to short Tesla.I'm intrigued! The brand damage being done is astronomical. Earnings growth has reversed and shows early indications of getting worse. And yet this negative-growth stock still has a PE of 148.
It's fallen enough that the fear of shorting is gone. My rough math says that even a 10% drop in sales will roughly cut their profits in half this year. And 2024 profits were half of 2023.
I don't think sales are quite as "doom" as some of the headlines suggest. But the stock has a LONG way to fall if it's not valued like a growth company. My guesses for 2025:
1. Tesla's energy business will continue to grow substantially. It's about 10% of revenue, and this will increase.
2. Sales in the US will decline modestly on the politics factor. Maybe 10-20%.
3. Sales in Canada and the EU will drop between 30-50% for the full year. Q1 will be particularly bad.
4. Sales in China will be flat-ish, with maybe slight growth. Less than the 9% growth they saw last year.
I'm seriously considering breaking my rule on not investing in individual stocks to short Tesla.I'm intrigued! The brand damage being done is astronomical. Earnings growth has reversed and shows early indications of getting worse. And yet this negative-growth stock still has a PE of 148.
It's fallen enough that the fear of shorting is gone. My rough math says that even a 10% drop in sales will roughly cut their profits in half this year. And 2024 profits were half of 2023.
I don't think sales are quite as "doom" as some of the headlines suggest. But the stock has a LONG way to fall if it's not valued like a growth company. My guesses for 2025:
1. Tesla's energy business will continue to grow substantially. It's about 10% of revenue, and this will increase.
2. Sales in the US will decline modestly on the politics factor. Maybe 10-20%.
3. Sales in Canada and the EU will drop between 30-50% for the full year. Q1 will be particularly bad.
4. Sales in China will be flat-ish, with maybe slight growth. Less than the 9% growth they saw last year.
The bull case revolves around FSD, and Musk has positioned himself to ensure the US government only approves his "if you trust it" FSD solution. But at what price will this monopoly be established? A third of the U.S. population has sworn off Tesla products forever, and the company's international reputation will only be hurt worse as his administration's tariffs lead to recessions in Europe, Asia, and Latin America. The -45% drop in European sales is particularly damming, since the EV market there is growing like crazy.
I made the case earlier that Musk joined the Trump administration to protect his investments in the Chinese market. He could, for example, influence the administration not to intervene in the coming invasion of Taiwan. Yet I wonder how successful he will be in this endeavor, and how long he can maintain a post under Trump. Perhaps our Manchurian candidate gets credit with the CCP for trying, but if heated rhetoric breaks out between Trump and Xi, then Musk could be on his way out, and his company's future in China could be questionable. In this scenario, Musk's foray into politics would have cost him half the markets in Europe and the U.S. while also failing to save China.
Paging @ColoradoTribe - we need a positive spin on all this!
-W
I feel like if one is inclined to invest in a Musk-associated company today, SpaceX would be a much better choice than Tesla.It's not immune:
I feel like if one is inclined to invest in a Musk-associated company today, SpaceX would be a much better choice than Tesla.
If you're not an accredited investor, then the only to invest in SpaceX is indirectly through limited ETFs or mutual funds.I feel like if one is inclined to invest in a Musk-associated company today, SpaceX would be a much better choice than Tesla.
Can a normal retail investor buy SpaceX shares?
It is very clear for smart leadership of any country. It is in their best interest to move away your dependence from companies with dangerous and toxic agendas. Don't finance or depend of companies like spaceX, twitter or Tesla. Use them to lure in the infrastructure if you need it and get rid of them like Chinese do. These are national security concerns.I feel like if one is inclined to invest in a Musk-associated company today, SpaceX would be a much better choice than Tesla.It's not immune:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ontario-ripping-68-million-starlink-195815774.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/ontario-ripping-68-million-starlink-195815774.html)
Paging @ColoradoTribe - we need a positive spin on all this!
-W
I feel like if one is inclined to invest in a Musk-associated company today, SpaceX would be a much better choice than Tesla.
Can a normal retail investor buy SpaceX shares?
Paging @ColoradoTribe - we need a positive spin on all this!
-W
I'm busy building a house these days. Sounds like you guys/gals got it all figured out and were "right" all along.
From Reddit:
"With 2024 financials, It would take Tesla over 14 years to cover his compensation on their income alone. 14.2 YEARS!
He is pushing to raise his compensation to $100 billion, up from $60 billion. The new comp is over 104% of the company’s revenue, 581% of the gross profit, and a staggering 1,422% of the net income."
From Reddit:
"With 2024 financials, It would take Tesla over 14 years to cover his compensation on their income alone. 14.2 YEARS!
He is pushing to raise his compensation to $100 billion, up from $60 billion. The new comp is over 104% of the company’s revenue, 581% of the gross profit, and a staggering 1,422% of the net income."
I hope they pay Elon tons, my shorts will do even better!
Can we get Tesla under 250 today? Come on you can do it market you can do it. -36% YTD.
Question: how easy would it be for mask or his intermediaries to manipulate the price? I don’t know what’s normal but it’s interesting to see volume jumping rapidly as the share price struggles to rally.
Elon Musk went over 5% ownership of Twitter without filing a required SEC letter of intent. What are the odds he actually knows about the borrowing rate for shorting Tesla shares, and cares?Can we get Tesla under 250 today? Come on you can do it market you can do it. -36% YTD.
Question: how easy would it be for mask or his intermediaries to manipulate the price? I don’t know what’s normal but it’s interesting to see volume jumping rapidly as the share price struggles to rally.
As someone who is “short” I’m concerned he can manipulate the borrow rate which so far has been low (.25-.4%). I know other companies with high short interest can have borrow rates of like 40% which would be economically untenable for me and I’d have to buy back the shares
I’m not predicting it will happen, but theoretically speaking he absolutely could strong arm banks and the SEC into doing his bidding without fear of any criminal consequences as long as he’s protected by the executive branch. With his level of access to federal agencies, the number of levers he could potentially use are many
Here's a point I haven't seen discussed:
https://www.politico.eu/article/tesla-plummeting-sales-risk-emissions-credit-earning/
Europe has a carbon trading market which allows ICE automakers to comply with emissions standards by buying credits from EV makers. That's been a major source of revenue for Tesla: $2.76 billion in 2024 alone.
Now, because of Musk's mask-off Nazism, Tesla sales in Europe are cratering (even while EV sales are growing overall). That not only decreases Tesla's direct revenue, it means they won't have carbon credits to sell anymore, which is going to deprive them of another important income stream.
(https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/ap24022496467396.jpg?c=original)
I genuinely think that, if the people that are shorting tesla believe easily disprovable things, and are wrapped up in political idealotry, then this is the buying opportunity of the century.
Gary Black has TSLA 6-12 PT at 380$, and he gives the catalysts. I personally believe that and am loading up on shares for this reason.
In the mean time, please please watch more MSNBC so I can get a bigger discount.Here's a point I haven't seen discussed:
https://www.politico.eu/article/tesla-plummeting-sales-risk-emissions-credit-earning/
Europe has a carbon trading market which allows ICE automakers to comply with emissions standards by buying credits from EV makers. That's been a major source of revenue for Tesla: $2.76 billion in 2024 alone.
Now, because of Musk's mask-off Nazism, Tesla sales in Europe are cratering (even while EV sales are growing overall). That not only decreases Tesla's direct revenue, it means they won't have carbon credits to sell anymore, which is going to deprive them of another important income stream.
Don’t say Hess to Nazi accusations!- https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1882406209187409976 (https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1882406209187409976)
Some people will Goebbels anything down!
Stop Gőring your enemies!
His pronouns would’ve been He/Himmler!
Bet you did nazi that coming
Sure, go ahead and catch a falling knife. WHat’s bottom, according to you?
Go ahead and believe Elon when he says LiDAR is stupid and that they’ve been testing robotaxis and they’re almost ready to go. If they’re not a car company, they better start innovating. If they are a car company, they are behind on self-driving, battery tech, safety, etc.
Tesla could be an OK investment in the future. But not with Musk sucking all the money and goodwill out of it.
Gary Black has TSLA 6-12 PT at 380$, and he gives the catalysts. I personally believe that and am loading up on shares for this reason.
4/ FY’2025 deliv expectations (WS +11% YoY) too high (my FY’25 est +2-3%)
Gary Black has TSLA 6-12 PT at 380$, and he gives the catalysts. I personally believe that and am loading up on shares for this reason.
Gary Black? This is one of his negatives:Quote from: https://xcancel.com/garyblack00/status/18980907502371107334/ FY’2025 deliv expectations (WS +11% YoY) too high (my FY’25 est +2-3%)
I'm not seeing it. Juniper isn't helping China sales (yet?), the Model 2/Q is an on again-off again rumor, so the sales growth comes from...the Cybertruck? Or the ever delayed FSD will achieve more than 500 miles per critical disengagement and people will rush to buy a Tesla even in China where a competitor includes it standard with many of their cars?
Deliveries will be lucky to be -2-3% given the declining sales in Europe, China, and the US. Deliveries this quarter are going to be really bad.
Wow... who thought getting puts is so much fun... hopefully I don't get addicted to options trading. I'm up 100% already. Maybe I'll sell a couple contracts to lock in some gains and let the rest ride.
I've never actually shorted anything, these are all short term cap gains I assume.
Wow... who thought getting puts is so much fun... hopefully I don't get addicted to options trading. I'm up 100% already. Maybe I'll sell a couple contracts to lock in some gains and let the rest ride.
I've never actually shorted anything, these are all short term cap gains I assume.
Yeah I think it's all taxable at regular rates so you actually have to short twice as much to cover your taxes
I really feel like I missed out on this. I should have known that Tesla would drop, not just the big drop today.
How did you short it? Puts? (I mean what length, date and price did you use?)
FIFYThatEvery scene in the dark night is so good
BYD's FSD can't compare to Teslas.But adding a third competitor, I thought Waymo was far ahead of Tesla on FSD.
The sales slump is due to people waiting for the new model Y (he made several tweets covering this).
I really feel like I missed out on this. I should have known that Tesla would drop, not just the big drop today.
How did you short it? Puts? (I mean what length, date and price did you use?)
Anonymous. Discreet.
Don't waste any more time trying to sell your Tesla.
We'll take it from here...
You're right. That whole movie is good from start to finish.FIFYThatEvery scene in the dark night is so good
Is there a positive trade to be made if everyone torches their Tesla? I mean the concept of global warming and benefits of electric vehicles still holds right, so would there be a big increase in sales from non-Nazi run car manufacturers and could buying options on these give big gains?
I want to say buy the dip, but I can't predict the future, and Elon seems to be doing irreversible damage to the brand.
I think about the people who are trading in their Teslas right now. Those were probably people who would have drove Teslas for the indefinite future. Now they are spending those dollars on other car brands and probably won't go back.
The company won't crash and burn to the ground, but the future seems murky.
I am not sure. Nobody is. If Tesla starts get 100 billion a year in contracts the stock price will rocket, but nobody really knows if that will ever come to fruition and for how long.I want to say buy the dip, but I can't predict the future, and Elon seems to be doing irreversible damage to the brand.
I think about the people who are trading in their Teslas right now. Those were probably people who would have drove Teslas for the indefinite future. Now they are spending those dollars on other car brands and probably won't go back.
The company won't crash and burn to the ground, but the future seems murky.
Are you sure? Once they start paying 100 billion a year to Musk it's going to be pretty tough to succeed.
Anecdotally, most of the republicans in my life think electric cars are the automotive equivalent of the boogie man that will burst into flames and leave you stranded on the road. They also think you will be on a perpetual road trip where you need 400 miles of range between gas stations at all times.
Of course, this assumes what Musk says is in some way connected to objective reality.
He is as far from reality as you can be. There is no way he understands the day-to-day life of an average person. The dude has kids with women just to repopulate and not be a good dadOf course, this assumes what Musk says is in some way connected to objective reality.
Musk has always been disconnected from reality on his predictions. See: his yearly claim that fully autonomous self-driving is only a month or two away - made for more than ten years in a row.
Here's a bull case for Tesla. Elon just announced US Tesla production will double in two years.
The numbers are little hard to find easily, but it appears current US production is about 700,000/year out of 1.8 million sold globally. So that means in two years Tesla anticipates selling 2.5 million cars--assuming no global growth at all. That's a 40% increase. But it gets better. Musk tweeted that by 2030, Tesla will be selling 20 million cars a year--more than VW and Toyota combined!
With that rate of growth, TSLA's eye popping PE of 120 doesn't seem unreasonable at all.
Of course, this assumes what Musk says is in some way connected to objective reality.
https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/elon-musk-says-tesla-will-double-us-production-in-next-two-years-3922484
https://cleantechnica.com/2020/10/02/elon-musk-tesla-aiming-for-20-million-vehicles-year-by-2030/
Oh, I am sure that demographic of owning the libs by buying an EV is out there, but it seems niche at best.
The cyber truck does seem like the new MAGA mobile.
Here's a bull case for Tesla. Elon just announced US Tesla production will double in two years.
The numbers are little hard to find easily, but it appears current US production is about 700,000/year out of 1.8 million sold globally. So that means in two years Tesla anticipates selling 2.5 million cars--assuming no global growth at all. That's a 40% increase. But it gets better. Musk tweeted that by 2030, Tesla will be selling 20 million cars a year--more than VW and Toyota combined!
With that rate of growth, TSLA's eye popping PE of 120 doesn't seem unreasonable at all.
Of course, this assumes what Musk says is in some way connected to objective reality.
https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/elon-musk-says-tesla-will-double-us-production-in-next-two-years-3922484
https://cleantechnica.com/2020/10/02/elon-musk-tesla-aiming-for-20-million-vehicles-year-by-2030/
Here's a bull case for Tesla. Elon just announced US Tesla production will double in two years.
The numbers are little hard to find easily, but it appears current US production is about 700,000/year out of 1.8 million sold globally. So that means in two years Tesla anticipates selling 2.5 million cars--assuming no global growth at all. That's a 40% increase. But it gets better. Musk tweeted that by 2030, Tesla will be selling 20 million cars a year--more than VW and Toyota combined!
With that rate of growth, TSLA's eye popping PE of 120 doesn't seem unreasonable at all.
Of course, this assumes what Musk says is in some way connected to objective reality.
https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/elon-musk-says-tesla-will-double-us-production-in-next-two-years-3922484
https://cleantechnica.com/2020/10/02/elon-musk-tesla-aiming-for-20-million-vehicles-year-by-2030/
Seems like most of this gain would come from some combination of maximizing current production capacity (Tesla's plants are not currently at full production capacity), and bringing new models online like the Cybercab, Semi, and the mystery "Affordable" model they've been promising to release this year but haven't shown to anybody yet. This isn't really a new revelation, just reaffirming what Musk has already been barking about for ~6 months or more.
- Longbow is a new EV car company out of the UK that aims to launch two new sports cars.
- Dubbed the Speedster and the Roadster, they prioritize lightweight design above all else.
- Reservations are open for the Speedster starting at $110,000 and the Roadster at $84,000.
“A lot of customers have put deposits down for a Roadster they can’t get,” Davy told the magazine. “So we thought we’d be the first electric Roadster to actually follow the Tesla Roadster. If people want to get their $250,000 deposit back for a 2020 car and put it into something better, they’ll get one sooner with us. They’re welcome to do it. Our Roadster’s going to be on the ground first.”
I actually knew someone who experience this firsthand. They would often times have to drive from a red state to a blue state to get their Tesla serviced. It was quite the pain in the rear end. It was almost nearly impossible to get the mobile service to drive three hours to them.Oh, I am sure that demographic of owning the libs by buying an EV is out there, but it seems niche at best.
The cyber truck does seem like the new MAGA mobile.
Another wrinkle: Tesla are not so convenient to buy (or service) in many red states. Buyers will have to navigate the "strange" processes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_US_dealership_disputes
To be fair, there are a number of blue states that still protect the independence of dealerships, too.
I know some semi-rural Republicans with long commutes who bought a Model 3. They sold it last year because they couldn't get basic services done, without driving it 2 hours to a larger city with an authorized service center. Well, if it can drive that far, maybe it doesn't need service? The replacement was an ICE SUV.I actually knew someone who experience this firsthand. They would often times have to drive from a red state to a blue state to get their Tesla serviced. It was quite the pain in the rear end. It was almost nearly impossible to get the mobile service to drive three hours to them.Oh, I am sure that demographic of owning the libs by buying an EV is out there, but it seems niche at best.Another wrinkle: Tesla are not so convenient to buy (or service) in many red states. Buyers will have to navigate the "strange" processes.
The cyber truck does seem like the new MAGA mobile.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_US_dealership_disputes
To be fair, there are a number of blue states that still protect the independence of dealerships, too.
I guess there is some niche urban republicans who could buy Teslas but that just feels strange
Something I learned on TikTok today: Cybertrucks have aluminum frames.
This matters because there's a thing called the "fatigue limit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_limit)". Some metals have it, some don't. If a metal has a fatigue limit, that means that any amount of force less than the fatigue limit can be applied to that metal an infinite number of times without causing any structural damage or degradation.
Steel and titanium have a fatigue limit. Aluminum doesn't.
This means that, every time you use a Cybertruck to tow something heavy, you're weakening its frame by a small but irreversible amount. Eventually, it's going to fail catastrophically. These trucks have a finite lifespan from the moment they're built.
Liberals tend to be loud on the internet and they have been for this.
Liberals tend to be loud on the internet and they have been for this.
I find populists really loud online, but I think that's just a reaction to when they frequently say stuff that's factually incoherent to align with their Great Leader's latest random pronouncement. Things that make sense to you don't jar the brain and seem so "loud". I wouldn't be shocked to find all the political stripes post their thoughts online about the same amount.
Liberals tend to be loud on the internet and they have been for this.
I find populists really loud online, but I think that's just a reaction to when they frequently say stuff that's factually incoherent to align with their Great Leader's latest random pronouncement. Things that make sense to you don't jar the brain and seem so "loud". I wouldn't be shocked to find all the political stripes post their thoughts online about the same amount.
Elon seems extremely loud to me
I think billionaires and top government officials have PR teams to do this for them, while creating the illusion of Someone Who Just Wants To Communicate Directly With You Because They're Just So Damn Authentic. There is no way for us to prove or disprove the hypothesis.His average Xcrements last summer was 68/day. He's been hitting the keyboard, and the ketamine, even more this year.Elon seems extremely loud to meLiberals tend to be loud on the internet and they have been for this.I find populists really loud online, but I think that's just a reaction to when they frequently say stuff that's factually incoherent to align with their Great Leader's latest random pronouncement. Things that make sense to you don't jar the brain and seem so "loud". I wouldn't be shocked to find all the political stripes post their thoughts online about the same amount.
I think billionaires and top government officials have PR teams to do this for them, while creating the illusion of Someone Who Just Wants To Communicate Directly With You Because They're Just So Damn Authentic. There is no way for us to prove or disprove the hypothesis.His average Xcrements last summer was 68/day. He's been hitting the keyboard, and the ketamine, even more this year.Elon seems extremely loud to meLiberals tend to be loud on the internet and they have been for this.I find populists really loud online, but I think that's just a reaction to when they frequently say stuff that's factually incoherent to align with their Great Leader's latest random pronouncement. Things that make sense to you don't jar the brain and seem so "loud". I wouldn't be shocked to find all the political stripes post their thoughts online about the same amount.
A little FSD update: My Dad is running 13.2.8 on his Model Y. It has gone 3000 miles without a necessary intervention. Looks almost certain that we are getting vision based unsupervised self driving cars in the next 12 months. Right now is a very interesting time to invest if you are considering doing so.
A little FSD update: My Dad is running 13.2.8 on his Model Y. It has gone 3000 miles without a necessary intervention. Looks almost certain that we are getting vision based unsupervised self driving cars in the next 12 months. Right now is a very interesting time to invest if you are considering doing so.
A little FSD update: My Dad is running 13.2.8 on his Model Y. It has gone 3000 miles without a necessary intervention. Looks almost certain that we are getting vision based unsupervised self driving cars in the next 12 months. Right now is a very interesting time to invest if you are considering doing so.
Has your Dad done any poor weather / night time driving? Not knocking it, but I am curious.
A little FSD update: My Dad is running 13.2.8 on his Model Y. It has gone 3000 miles without a necessary intervention. Looks almost certain that we are getting vision based unsupervised self driving cars in the next 12 months. Right now is a very interesting time to invest if you are considering doing so.
I do wonder if there are “necessary interventions” needed by other drivers that are never captured outside of the family dinner table “honey, please pass the butter, and you should have seen how close I came to bending the Corolla on my way home thanks to some damn Tesla.” I’ve seen good drivers and bad drivers create problems.
A little FSD update: My Dad is running 13.2.8 on his Model Y. It has gone 3000 miles without a necessary intervention. Looks almost certain that we are getting vision based unsupervised self driving cars in the next 12 months. Right now is a very interesting time to invest if you are considering doing so.
Has your Dad done any poor weather / night time driving? Not knocking it, but I am curious.
Inclement weather is "not a chance in hell". The cameras get obscured by any amount of road slush or dirt. This disables the whole system including anything related to autopilot or FSD.When you say "disables" do you mean it pops up a warning that says "the lenses are too obscured to use FSD, please clean me"?
robotaxi service due to start in Austin in 3 months.Here's what you have to look forward to!
Meanwhile...
https://x.com/greentheonly/status/1902731311883632951
When evaluating the potential of the the autonomous car business the key metric to look at is cost per mile of transport. A self driving Tesla's current competition is a human driven gasoline powered car. The self driving Tesla eliminates the labor or human attention cost, most of the fuel cost and most of the maintenance cost. A robotaxi would also be expected to have much higher utilization as well spreading out the amortization cost over a larger number miles per year. In the end, low cost = large market share.
As far as competition, there really is none in America (Waymo's unit costs are too high). A couple of weeks ago, FSD was released in China. Observers there have commented that FSD appears to be 1.5 years ahead of the Chinese competition. So, this basically means that Tesla has a lock on the Western robotaxi market (Do you think that we will let Chinese spy cars be sold here??) and a decent lead in China.
Lastly, I grew up in the beautiful forests of America. I keep being drawn to cities for career reasons, but I resist it because of my love for nature. This revolution offers an opportunity to green our cities if we take advantage of it. We can replace parking lots with trees and green. Here is the Robotaxi unveil video set to show this: https://www.youtube.com/live/6v6dbxPlsXs?si=foDl4WrSrdFPnfBQ&t=1011 (https://www.youtube.com/live/6v6dbxPlsXs?si=foDl4WrSrdFPnfBQ&t=1011)
When evaluating the potential of the the autonomous car business the key metric to look at is cost per mile of transport. A self driving Tesla's current competition is a human driven gasoline powered car. The self driving Tesla eliminates the labor or human attention cost, most of the fuel cost and most of the maintenance cost. A robotaxi would also be expected to have much higher utilization as well spreading out the amortization cost over a larger number miles per year. In the end, low cost = large market share.
Be careful to check which version of software is used in some of those comparisons. I'm seeing lots of videos that are using old versions of the software (The above Greentheonly video and the Mark Rober video I assume you're referencing).When evaluating the potential of the the autonomous car business the key metric to look at is cost per mile of transport. A self driving Tesla's current competition is a human driven gasoline powered car. The self driving Tesla eliminates the labor or human attention cost, most of the fuel cost and most of the maintenance cost. A robotaxi would also be expected to have much higher utilization as well spreading out the amortization cost over a larger number miles per year. In the end, low cost = large market share.
As far as competition, there really is none in America (Waymo's unit costs are too high). A couple of weeks ago, FSD was released in China. Observers there have commented that FSD appears to be 1.5 years ahead of the Chinese competition. So, this basically means that Tesla has a lock on the Western robotaxi market (Do you think that we will let Chinese spy cars be sold here??) and a decent lead in China.
Lastly, I grew up in the beautiful forests of America. I keep being drawn to cities for career reasons, but I resist it because of my love for nature. This revolution offers an opportunity to green our cities if we take advantage of it. We can replace parking lots with trees and green. Here is the Robotaxi unveil video set to show this: https://www.youtube.com/live/6v6dbxPlsXs?si=foDl4WrSrdFPnfBQ&t=1011 (https://www.youtube.com/live/6v6dbxPlsXs?si=foDl4WrSrdFPnfBQ&t=1011)
Your take about observer comments on FSD vs Chinese options is at odds with other commentary. See for example: https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/1ibwr6u/has_china_fsd_caught_up/
There have also been recent videos where Tesla did quite poorly vs other competitors in US. E.g. Tesla’s camera based systems vs LiDAR based systems.
Overall, Tesla may not have a significant lead or advantage.
When evaluating the potential of the the autonomous car business the key metric to look at is cost per mile of transport. A self driving Tesla's current competition is a human driven gasoline powered car. The self driving Tesla eliminates the labor or human attention cost, most of the fuel cost and most of the maintenance cost. A robotaxi would also be expected to have much higher utilization as well spreading out the amortization cost over a larger number miles per year. In the end, low cost = large market share.
That's an unfairly weighted comparison. Why not compare an EV driving Uber driver to a Tesla robotaxi?
Be careful to check which version of software is used in some of those comparisons. I'm seeing lots of videos that are using old versions of the software (The above Greentheonly video and the Mark Rober video I assume you're referencing).
When evaluating the potential of the the autonomous car business the key metric to look at is cost per mile of transport. A self driving Tesla's current competition is a human driven gasoline powered car. The self driving Tesla eliminates the labor or human attention cost, most of the fuel cost and most of the maintenance cost. A robotaxi would also be expected to have much higher utilization as well spreading out the amortization cost over a larger number miles per year. In the end, low cost = large market share.
That's an unfairly weighted comparison. Why not compare an EV driving Uber driver to a Tesla robotaxi?
Exactly! This is an unfair competition. That is why it is such a good business!
Most of the price of an Uber is the cost of the driver.
Some back of the envelope math:
Assume a driver does 50k miles a year and earns $40k annually. This works out to a labor cost of $0.80 per mile. The federal mileage reimbursement rate is $0.70 per mile. AKA the driver is more than half of the cost. Elimination of just the driver results in a service that only costs half of what it currently does. Low cost is what will drive robotaxi adoption.
b) the tech industry is spending many billions of dollars to automate some of the lowest paid work.
When evaluating the potential of the the autonomous car business the key metric to look at is cost per mile of transport. A self driving Tesla's current competition is a human driven gasoline powered car. The self driving Tesla eliminates the labor or human attention cost, most of the fuel cost and most of the maintenance cost. A robotaxi would also be expected to have much higher utilization as well spreading out the amortization cost over a larger number miles per year. In the end, low cost = large market share.
That's an unfairly weighted comparison. Why not compare an EV driving Uber driver to a Tesla robotaxi?
Exactly! This is an unfair competition. That is why it is such a good business!
Most of the price of an Uber is the cost of the driver.
Some back of the envelope math:
Assume a driver does 50k miles a year and earns $40k annually. This works out to a labor cost of $0.80 per mile. The federal mileage reimbursement rate is $0.70 per mile. AKA the driver is more than half of the cost. Elimination of just the driver results in a service that only costs half of what it currently does. Low cost is what will drive robotaxi adoption.
It's an unfair comparison because you've compared ICE taxi to BEV robotaxi. An apples-to-apples comparison would be BEV taxi vs BEV robotaxi.
And that labor cost doesn't just zero out and go away, it gets replaced with autonomous vehicle costs. First, there's the cost of capital for the roughly $10 billion Tesla has invested (so far) on self driving cars. Then there's the cost for teleoperators and all that goes along with this. Since there's no human driver someone or something has to clean the vehicle and maintain and charge it. It all adds up.
That $0.70/mile reimbursement includes fuel, maintenance, repairs, insurance, registration, and depreciation. Only one of these is specific to ICE vehicles.
So if we assume your math is correct and Uber drivers get paid around $0.80/mile, then after all expenses they are really making around $0.10/mile, perhaps a little more IF they're in a BEV and can get relatively low charging rates (fast charging isn't much better than gas in many places).
This means a) Uber drivers aren't making nearly as much money as it may appear on the surface (much has been written about this) and b) the tech industry is spending many billions of dollars to automate some of the lowest paid work.
In hindsight, him buying Twitter was the start of all of this. We should have seen this coming...
I think TSLA fans are ignoring (or severely underestimating) the implications of the Musk-Twitter-Tesla association in the mind of consumers. At some point people are going to feel uncomfortable being seen in Twitter cars.
This is How Tesla Will Die
https://www.planetearthandbeyond.co/p/this-is-how-tesla-will-die
In hindsight, him buying Twitter was the start of all of this. We should have seen this coming...
Elon's role model has demonstrated you can fail at business and go bankrupt again and again while being successful in gaining celebrity and power. So while the failure of Tesla will be bad for the retail investor Muskrat will probably spin it into his next conspiracy fueled enterprise and be just fine.
Elon's role model has demonstrated you can fail at business and go bankrupt again and again while being successful in gaining celebrity and power. So while the failure of Tesla will be bad for the retail investor Muskrat will probably spin it into his next conspiracy fueled enterprise and be just fine.
He seems to have copied Trump in this regard.
The stock has a lot further to fall before there's really shareholder damages.
@FINate I wasn't on the forum back then. I was naive and said it was nothing but look at where we are now.
The stock has a lot further to fall before there's really shareholder damages.
Peak was about $480/share and it's now down to $250/share. If you can draw a straight line between the CEO's behaviour/performance and that share price decline I'd say you have a pretty good argument for shareholder damages even if they are still up vs. some other time period.
Okay, so take his politics, antics, and branding out of the picture. Why is Tesla a bad investment? I am genuinely curious. Are the cars lackluster? Is competition catching up? Are the legacy auto makers making a more compelling product?@FINate I wasn't on the forum back then. I was naive and said it was nothing but look at where we are now.
If you look at my comments from that era you'll find a number about the damage Musk was doing to the Tesla brand. Branding is squishy and difficult to quantify, but it's very powerful in the sense that it's the first thing potential customers think of when a company comes to mind. It's also very sticky and hard to change. They probably don't want to admit it, but branding is the main reason Tesla bros continue buying/holding TSLA even though the fundamentals indicate it's a poor investment. What I underestimated was how completely toxic Musk would become. Musk single-handedly took the Tesla brand from visionary innovative disruptor to backwards pariah in just a couple of years. The level of destruction is breathtaking.
Okay, so take his politics, antics, and branding out of the picture. Why is Tesla a bad investment? I am genuinely curious. Are the cars lackluster? Is competition catching up? Are the legacy auto makers making a more compelling product?@FINate I wasn't on the forum back then. I was naive and said it was nothing but look at where we are now.
If you look at my comments from that era you'll find a number about the damage Musk was doing to the Tesla brand. Branding is squishy and difficult to quantify, but it's very powerful in the sense that it's the first thing potential customers think of when a company comes to mind. It's also very sticky and hard to change. They probably don't want to admit it, but branding is the main reason Tesla bros continue buying/holding TSLA even though the fundamentals indicate it's a poor investment. What I underestimated was how completely toxic Musk would become. Musk single-handedly took the Tesla brand from visionary innovative disruptor to backwards pariah in just a couple of years. The level of destruction is breathtaking.
Okay, so take his politics, antics, and branding out of the picture. Why is Tesla a bad investment? I am genuinely curious. Are the cars lackluster? Is competition catching up? Are the legacy auto makers making a more compelling product?
The Financial Times reported last month, citing two unnamed sources, that Chinese officials were considering withholding Tesla’s FSD license approval as leverage in trade negotiations with Trump. This was the primary reason for the permit’s delay, the sources were quoted as saying.
Okay, so take his politics, antics, and branding out of the picture. Why is Tesla a bad investment? I am genuinely curious. Are the cars lackluster? Is competition catching up? Are the legacy auto makers making a more compelling product?@FINate I wasn't on the forum back then. I was naive and said it was nothing but look at where we are now.
If you look at my comments from that era you'll find a number about the damage Musk was doing to the Tesla brand. Branding is squishy and difficult to quantify, but it's very powerful in the sense that it's the first thing potential customers think of when a company comes to mind. It's also very sticky and hard to change. They probably don't want to admit it, but branding is the main reason Tesla bros continue buying/holding TSLA even though the fundamentals indicate it's a poor investment. What I underestimated was how completely toxic Musk would become. Musk single-handedly took the Tesla brand from visionary innovative disruptor to backwards pariah in just a couple of years. The level of destruction is breathtaking.
What electric cars are popular in the US other than Tesla? My impression always is that Tesla is far larger there than in Europe but maybe I'm wrong. Still, it's hard to see if others are producing equally good (and more varied) cars in Europe why they (or somebody else) would not be able to do so in the US also.
Here in London we just bought an EV (Skoda Enyaq - so far very happy) and so in the run up to that started paying attention to what other electric cars are around. Looking at fully electric cars parked in my neighbourhood (helpfully marked with a green stripe on their number plates) it's mainly Hyundai and Kia, with quite a few BMW, VW, Nissan and Skoda, and the occasional Tesla, Porsche, Audi, Volvo or Polestar (but all of those seem way less common than the others listed above). I do see more Teslas driving around in the centre of the city (presumably from the more Bankery neighbourhoods), though everyone I know who has one (leased) is switching to a different brand as soon as the lease is up (and there is plenty to choose from these days).
Okay, so take his politics, antics, and branding out of the picture. Why is Tesla a bad investment? I am genuinely curious. Are the cars lackluster? Is competition catching up? Are the legacy auto makers making a more compelling product?@FINate I wasn't on the forum back then. I was naive and said it was nothing but look at where we are now.
If you look at my comments from that era you'll find a number about the damage Musk was doing to the Tesla brand. Branding is squishy and difficult to quantify, but it's very powerful in the sense that it's the first thing potential customers think of when a company comes to mind. It's also very sticky and hard to change. They probably don't want to admit it, but branding is the main reason Tesla bros continue buying/holding TSLA even though the fundamentals indicate it's a poor investment. What I underestimated was how completely toxic Musk would become. Musk single-handedly took the Tesla brand from visionary innovative disruptor to backwards pariah in just a couple of years. The level of destruction is breathtaking.
Ford is valued at a PE of 7. GM is valued at a PE of 8.
If Tesla was valued at a PE of 7.5, it would be a $15 stock.
Tesla's cars are pretty good. They do have value. But there isn't a lot that sets them apart from the competition. I own a Tesla today, but I would pick an EV6 or Ioniq 5 if I were in the market today. Rivian's R2 is also going to hit Tesla's sweet spot in the Model Y for price, value, and capabilities. A lot of other brands like Ford, GM, and Honda are finally hitting their stride in the EV market with compelling products and dealers that know how to sell them in volume. It doesn't mean these other makers are going to put Tesla out of business, but it does mean there's much less opportunity for Tesla to grow.
I'd be willing to accept the argument that Tesla deserves some type of growth premium if they showed a promising path to revenue growth over the medium term, or if it appeared Tesla margin advantage was sustainable. I'd say the stock could be worth a PE 20 or even 30 at fair value if I believed that growth story. That puts fair value in the $40 - $60 range for those that still believe the growth story.
Love him or hate him (more hate now I guess), but never bet against the Elon.
I wouldn't have bet against Wernher von Braun either and the USA used the heck out of him even though he probably saluted way more than Elon.
But von Braun rejected Nazism after coming to the US via Operation Paperclip, and his connection to/membership in the Nazi party was not widely known until after his death. Unlike Elon’s.
But von Braun rejected Nazism after coming to the US via Operation Paperclip, and his connection to/membership in the Nazi party was not widely known until after his death. Unlike Elon’s.
Oh, so when he came to the USA, he rejected Nazism so everything was totes ok?
"Regarding slave labor, von Braun’s work on the V-2 relied heavily on it. The rockets were produced at facilities like the Mittelwerk factory, part of the Dora-Mittelbau concentration camp complex, where tens of thousands of forced laborers—prisoners, Jews, and others—worked under brutal conditions. Estimates suggest that around 20,000 laborers died due to exhaustion, malnutrition, or execution during the production process. Von Braun was aware of these conditions; he visited the Mittelwerk site multiple times and, in some instances, personally requested labor from concentration camps, as documented in surviving correspondence."
We always harp on saying that past results do no guarantee future performance. Do we just live in an era now where these high-flying tech stocks can have obscene PE ratios?
We always harp on saying that past results do no guarantee future performance. Do we just live in an era now where these high-flying tech stocks can have obscene PE ratios?
We always harp on saying that past results do no guarantee future performance. Do we just live in an era now where these high-flying tech stocks can have obscene PE ratios?
Simple P/E can be misleading for high growth companies, because it is backward-facing. NVidia's P/E is 41. But it's forward P/E is 27--actually cheaper than Walmart on that basis. And with 27% expected EPS growth this year, that's a PEG of about 1--actually, a pretty good deal. (Of course, predicated on the company making its guidance and analyst estimates)
Tesla's PE as of yesterday's close is 136; but it's forward PE is...100. Analysts have Tesla's EPS growing at 35%--a challenging notion, given its difficult start, particularly outside the US. But even so, that gives a PEG of 3--about twice as high as what would start to be called "expensive."
A whole lot has to go right, just to justify the price now. (Much less, get more appreciation) if anything goes wrong, big steps down would be in the near future.
These numbers are only looking a year into the future; hardly long term, but the future gets cloudier the farther out you go. My conclusion is, Tesla's price today already assumes a radical transformation of the company from an automaker. Anything less than that will disappoint the market, and cause a large price drop. That is an extremely risky thesis to buy now.
I won't be surprised with car deliveries down ~20% for the full year (and yes; I'm counting in the declines in Canada and the 43% decline in the EU). While it's hard to put an exact financial impact on a decline like this, we're talking about a range of EPS reduction of -50% to completely eliminating profitability.
I don't even know why I am in this thread I literally dollar cost average the classic three fund portfolio. Picking individual stocks gives me paralysis by analysis.
I don't even know why I am in this thread I literally dollar cost average the classic three fund portfolio. Picking individual stocks gives me paralysis by analysis.
But von Braun rejected Nazism after coming to the US via Operation Paperclip, and his connection to/membership in the Nazi party was not widely known until after his death. Unlike Elon’s.
Oh, so when he came to the USA, he rejected Nazism so everything was totes ok?
"Regarding slave labor, von Braun’s work on the V-2 relied heavily on it. The rockets were produced at facilities like the Mittelwerk factory, part of the Dora-Mittelbau concentration camp complex, where tens of thousands of forced laborers—prisoners, Jews, and others—worked under brutal conditions. Estimates suggest that around 20,000 laborers died due to exhaustion, malnutrition, or execution during the production process. Von Braun was aware of these conditions; he visited the Mittelwerk site multiple times and, in some instances, personally requested labor from concentration camps, as documented in surviving correspondence."
Nope. I am aware of all that and started a whole thread on Nazis in America. Would love more traction on that because it’s definitely deeper than I realized.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/the-ongoing-problem-of-nazis-in-america-past-and-present/
Not in the mood to be argued with & misunderstood today.
My sole point was that Elon has NOT disavowed Nazis nor apologized for throwing a salute, indeed he has done the opposite and implied Nazis shouldn’t be judged for their “culture”. Further, and perhaps more sinister, he both admires von Braun and then claims to be surprised —years apart— that he’s possibly named after a character in von Braun’s sci-fi novel. This is sinister because it’s clearly a narcissistic lie where he’s pretended more than once to be surprised that his name is associated with Von Braun (regardless of whether or not it’s true that his dad named him for the character).
https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/02/04/musk-leader-mars/
But von Braun rejected Nazism after coming to the US via Operation Paperclip, and his connection to/membership in the Nazi party was not widely known until after his death. Unlike Elon’s.
Oh, so when he came to the USA, he rejected Nazism so everything was totes ok?
"Regarding slave labor, von Braun’s work on the V-2 relied heavily on it. The rockets were produced at facilities like the Mittelwerk factory, part of the Dora-Mittelbau concentration camp complex, where tens of thousands of forced laborers—prisoners, Jews, and others—worked under brutal conditions. Estimates suggest that around 20,000 laborers died due to exhaustion, malnutrition, or execution during the production process. Von Braun was aware of these conditions; he visited the Mittelwerk site multiple times and, in some instances, personally requested labor from concentration camps, as documented in surviving correspondence."
Nope. I am aware of all that and started a whole thread on Nazis in America. Would love more traction on that because it’s definitely deeper than I realized.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/the-ongoing-problem-of-nazis-in-america-past-and-present/
Not in the mood to be argued with & misunderstood today.
My sole point was that Elon has NOT disavowed Nazis nor apologized for throwing a salute, indeed he has done the opposite and implied Nazis shouldn’t be judged for their “culture”. Further, and perhaps more sinister, he both admires von Braun and then claims to be surprised —years apart— that he’s possibly named after a character in von Braun’s sci-fi novel. This is sinister because it’s clearly a narcissistic lie where he’s pretended more than once to be surprised that his name is associated with Von Braun (regardless of whether or not it’s true that his dad named him for the character).
https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/02/04/musk-leader-mars/
Can you please let this nonsense go. Elon directly addressed the "salute" in the 10-15 minute-ish mark of his last Joe Rogan podcast interview, #2281. He is not a nazi. It's incredible to me that this BS has gained so much traction and so many people have jumped on the shit on Elon train. Name one other person who has done more for green energy and to help transition from ICE vehicles to BEVs.
But von Braun rejected Nazism after coming to the US via Operation Paperclip, and his connection to/membership in the Nazi party was not widely known until after his death. Unlike Elon’s.
Oh, so when he came to the USA, he rejected Nazism so everything was totes ok?
"Regarding slave labor, von Braun’s work on the V-2 relied heavily on it. The rockets were produced at facilities like the Mittelwerk factory, part of the Dora-Mittelbau concentration camp complex, where tens of thousands of forced laborers—prisoners, Jews, and others—worked under brutal conditions. Estimates suggest that around 20,000 laborers died due to exhaustion, malnutrition, or execution during the production process. Von Braun was aware of these conditions; he visited the Mittelwerk site multiple times and, in some instances, personally requested labor from concentration camps, as documented in surviving correspondence."
Nope. I am aware of all that and started a whole thread on Nazis in America. Would love more traction on that because it’s definitely deeper than I realized.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/the-ongoing-problem-of-nazis-in-america-past-and-present/
Not in the mood to be argued with & misunderstood today.
My sole point was that Elon has NOT disavowed Nazis nor apologized for throwing a salute, indeed he has done the opposite and implied Nazis shouldn’t be judged for their “culture”. Further, and perhaps more sinister, he both admires von Braun and then claims to be surprised —years apart— that he’s possibly named after a character in von Braun’s sci-fi novel. This is sinister because it’s clearly a narcissistic lie where he’s pretended more than once to be surprised that his name is associated with Von Braun (regardless of whether or not it’s true that his dad named him for the character).
https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/02/04/musk-leader-mars/
Can you please let this nonsense go. Elon directly addressed the "salute" in the 10-15 minute-ish mark of his last Joe Rogan podcast interview, #2281. He is not a nazi. It's incredible to me that this BS has gained so much traction and so many people have jumped on the shit on Elon train. Name one other person who has done more for green energy and to help transition from ICE vehicles to BEVs.
Don’t say Hess to Nazi accusations!
Some people will Goebbels anything down!
Stop Gőring your enemies!
His pronouns would’ve been He/Himmler!
Bet you did nazi that coming 😂
They used to support Hitler and all that sort of stuff. But they didn’t know, I don’t think they knew what the Nazis were doing. But they [the grandparents] were in the German Nazi party but in Canada. And they sympathise with the Germans.- https://mronline.org/2025/01/28/nazi-billionaires/ (https://mronline.org/2025/01/28/nazi-billionaires/)
Jewish communties have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.Where Elon said that it was the 'actual truth'. - https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/15/media/elon-musk-antisemitism-white-people/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/15/media/elon-musk-antisemitism-white-people/index.html)
But von Braun rejected Nazism after coming to the US via Operation Paperclip, and his connection to/membership in the Nazi party was not widely known until after his death. Unlike Elon’s.
Oh, so when he came to the USA, he rejected Nazism so everything was totes ok?
"Regarding slave labor, von Braun’s work on the V-2 relied heavily on it. The rockets were produced at facilities like the Mittelwerk factory, part of the Dora-Mittelbau concentration camp complex, where tens of thousands of forced laborers—prisoners, Jews, and others—worked under brutal conditions. Estimates suggest that around 20,000 laborers died due to exhaustion, malnutrition, or execution during the production process. Von Braun was aware of these conditions; he visited the Mittelwerk site multiple times and, in some instances, personally requested labor from concentration camps, as documented in surviving correspondence."
Nope. I am aware of all that and started a whole thread on Nazis in America. Would love more traction on that because it’s definitely deeper than I realized.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/the-ongoing-problem-of-nazis-in-america-past-and-present/
Not in the mood to be argued with & misunderstood today.
My sole point was that Elon has NOT disavowed Nazis nor apologized for throwing a salute, indeed he has done the opposite and implied Nazis shouldn’t be judged for their “culture”. Further, and perhaps more sinister, he both admires von Braun and then claims to be surprised —years apart— that he’s possibly named after a character in von Braun’s sci-fi novel. This is sinister because it’s clearly a narcissistic lie where he’s pretended more than once to be surprised that his name is associated with Von Braun (regardless of whether or not it’s true that his dad named him for the character).
https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/02/04/musk-leader-mars/
Can you please let this nonsense go. Elon directly addressed the "salute" in the 10-15 minute-ish mark of his last Joe Rogan podcast interview, #2281. He is not a nazi. It's incredible to me that this BS has gained so much traction and so many people have jumped on the shit on Elon train. Name one other person who has done more for green energy and to help transition from ICE vehicles to BEVs.
Musk also addressed his nazi status by joking about the holocaust via tweet:QuoteDon’t say Hess to Nazi accusations!
Some people will Goebbels anything down!
Stop Gőring your enemies!
His pronouns would’ve been He/Himmler!
Bet you did nazi that coming 😂
- https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1882406209187409976 (https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1882406209187409976)
Musk also thrown his support fully behind Germany's AfD party. The AfD is an extremist organization that uses Nazi slogans and trivializes the holocaust (https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/alternative-germany-afd-party-what-you-need-know (https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/alternative-germany-afd-party-what-you-need-know)). Musk in a speech just before Germany's Holocaust Rememberance Day told AfD party members that "There is too much focus on past guilt, and we need to move beyond that", also saying "It's good to be proud of German culture, German values, and not to lose that in some sort of multiculturalism that dilutes everything". - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-germany-far-right-afd-remarks-auschwitz-holocaust-remembrance-day/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-germany-far-right-afd-remarks-auschwitz-holocaust-remembrance-day/)
And Musk's family has a history of support for Nazis. Errol Musk (Elon's father) said of Elon's maternal grandparents:QuoteThey used to support Hitler and all that sort of stuff. But they didn’t know, I don’t think they knew what the Nazis were doing. But they [the grandparents] were in the German Nazi party but in Canada. And they sympathise with the Germans.- https://mronline.org/2025/01/28/nazi-billionaires/ (https://mronline.org/2025/01/28/nazi-billionaires/)
And of course, there was Musk's response to this on twitter:QuoteJewish communties have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.Where Elon said that it was the 'actual truth'. - https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/15/media/elon-musk-antisemitism-white-people/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/15/media/elon-musk-antisemitism-white-people/index.html)
So . . . maybe taken alone, you could argue that Musk's Nazi salute had no meaning. But taken in context? I dunno. Seems tough to let it go as 'nonsense'. Whatever his deeply held personal convictions, at the very least Musk seems to be intentionally flirting with antisemitism for political reasons.
(https://i.redd.it/vpt4ycl43eee1.gif)
What is actually bad about Nazis — it wasn't their fashion or their mannerisms, it was the war and genocide.
You have to be committing genocide and starting wars [to be a Nazi.]
But von Braun rejected Nazism after coming to the US via Operation Paperclip, and his connection to/membership in the Nazi party was not widely known until after his death. Unlike Elon’s.
Oh, so when he came to the USA, he rejected Nazism so everything was totes ok?
"Regarding slave labor, von Braun’s work on the V-2 relied heavily on it. The rockets were produced at facilities like the Mittelwerk factory, part of the Dora-Mittelbau concentration camp complex, where tens of thousands of forced laborers—prisoners, Jews, and others—worked under brutal conditions. Estimates suggest that around 20,000 laborers died due to exhaustion, malnutrition, or execution during the production process. Von Braun was aware of these conditions; he visited the Mittelwerk site multiple times and, in some instances, personally requested labor from concentration camps, as documented in surviving correspondence."
Nope. I am aware of all that and started a whole thread on Nazis in America. Would love more traction on that because it’s definitely deeper than I realized.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/the-ongoing-problem-of-nazis-in-america-past-and-present/
Not in the mood to be argued with & misunderstood today.
My sole point was that Elon has NOT disavowed Nazis nor apologized for throwing a salute, indeed he has done the opposite and implied Nazis shouldn’t be judged for their “culture”. Further, and perhaps more sinister, he both admires von Braun and then claims to be surprised —years apart— that he’s possibly named after a character in von Braun’s sci-fi novel. This is sinister because it’s clearly a narcissistic lie where he’s pretended more than once to be surprised that his name is associated with Von Braun (regardless of whether or not it’s true that his dad named him for the character).
https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/02/04/musk-leader-mars/
Can you please let this nonsense go. Elon directly addressed the "salute" in the 10-15 minute-ish mark of his last Joe Rogan podcast interview, #2281. He is not a nazi. It's incredible to me that this BS has gained so much traction and so many people have jumped on the shit on Elon train. Name one other person who has done more for green energy and to help transition from ICE vehicles to BEVs.
Musk also addressed his nazi status by joking about the holocaust via tweet:QuoteDon’t say Hess to Nazi accusations!
Some people will Goebbels anything down!
Stop Gőring your enemies!
His pronouns would’ve been He/Himmler!
Bet you did nazi that coming 😂
- https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1882406209187409976 (https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1882406209187409976)
Musk also thrown his support fully behind Germany's AfD party. The AfD is an extremist organization that uses Nazi slogans and trivializes the holocaust (https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/alternative-germany-afd-party-what-you-need-know (https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/alternative-germany-afd-party-what-you-need-know)). Musk in a speech just before Germany's Holocaust Rememberance Day told AfD party members that "There is too much focus on past guilt, and we need to move beyond that", also saying "It's good to be proud of German culture, German values, and not to lose that in some sort of multiculturalism that dilutes everything". - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-germany-far-right-afd-remarks-auschwitz-holocaust-remembrance-day/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-germany-far-right-afd-remarks-auschwitz-holocaust-remembrance-day/)
And Musk's family has a history of support for Nazis. Errol Musk (Elon's father) said of Elon's maternal grandparents:QuoteThey used to support Hitler and all that sort of stuff. But they didn’t know, I don’t think they knew what the Nazis were doing. But they [the grandparents] were in the German Nazi party but in Canada. And they sympathise with the Germans.- https://mronline.org/2025/01/28/nazi-billionaires/ (https://mronline.org/2025/01/28/nazi-billionaires/)
And of course, there was Musk's response to this on twitter:QuoteJewish communties have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.Where Elon said that it was the 'actual truth'. - https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/15/media/elon-musk-antisemitism-white-people/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/15/media/elon-musk-antisemitism-white-people/index.html)
So . . . maybe taken alone, you could argue that Musk's Nazi salute had no meaning. But taken in context? I dunno. Seems tough to let it go as 'nonsense'. Whatever his deeply held personal convictions, at the very least Musk seems to be intentionally flirting with antisemitism for political reasons.
Musk also addressed his nazi status by joking about the holocaust via tweet:QuoteDon’t say Hess to Nazi accusations!
Some people will Goebbels anything down!
Stop Gőring your enemies!
His pronouns would’ve been He/Himmler!
Bet you did nazi that coming 😂
- https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1882406209187409976 (https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1882406209187409976)
Musk also thrown his support fully behind Germany's AfD party. The AfD is an extremist organization that uses Nazi slogans and trivializes the holocaust (https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/alternative-germany-afd-party-what-you-need-know (https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/alternative-germany-afd-party-what-you-need-know)). Musk in a speech just before Germany's Holocaust Rememberance Day told AfD party members that "There is too much focus on past guilt, and we need to move beyond that", also saying "It's good to be proud of German culture, German values, and not to lose that in some sort of multiculturalism that dilutes everything". - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-germany-far-right-afd-remarks-auschwitz-holocaust-remembrance-day/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-germany-far-right-afd-remarks-auschwitz-holocaust-remembrance-day/)
And Musk's family has a history of support for Nazis. Errol Musk (Elon's father) said of Elon's maternal grandparents:QuoteThey used to support Hitler and all that sort of stuff. But they didn’t know, I don’t think they knew what the Nazis were doing. But they [the grandparents] were in the German Nazi party but in Canada. And they sympathise with the Germans.- https://mronline.org/2025/01/28/nazi-billionaires/ (https://mronline.org/2025/01/28/nazi-billionaires/)
And of course, there was Musk's response to this on twitter:QuoteJewish communties have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.Where Elon said that it was the 'actual truth'. - https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/15/media/elon-musk-antisemitism-white-people/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/15/media/elon-musk-antisemitism-white-people/index.html)
So . . . maybe taken alone, you could argue that Musk's Nazi salute had no meaning. But taken in context? I dunno. Seems tough to let it go as 'nonsense'. Whatever his deeply held personal convictions, at the very least Musk seems to be intentionally flirting with antisemitism for political reasons.
your context is quoting jokes he made, beliefs of his grandparents he barely knew or passed away when he was young, and a speech about being patriotic. I don't think the gesture looked great, i will concede that.
https://youtu.be/XteSVPzL3fk?si=aoiy9-H6TfzWsmcG - Where is the outrage here?
Look, for reference, i am not a nazi, nor do i consider myself a conservative, i voted for Obama, Hillary and Biden and didnt vote in 2024. My belief is this all got blown out of proportion due to Musk's participation in the election and DOGE, which i wish, for his companies sake's wouldn't have. Its only hurt his reputation and brands.
Back to the thread topic, right now Tesla is not a good investment, don't buy the stock.
1) Tesla global sales down just 1.7% YOY after first two months of 2025.
What happens when Tesla rolls out two new cheaper models this year?
What happens when Tesla rolls out two new cheaper models this year?
Not enough people are going to buy them because the brand has been destroyed.
1) Tesla global sales down just 1.7% YOY after first two months of 2025.
This is either a misststement, or a misunderstanding. You can't get 1.7% down YoY when your largest markets are down double digits. (See below) YoY means comparable periods.
The video estimates that Tesla has lost, so far, 1.7% of annual sales in Jan-Feb. The premise is that Tesla can make this up, with production of the refreshed Model Y now underway. This is possible, and I do think media conclusions that the drop is 100% political is conveniently ignoring a factory shutdown situation.
But, Wall Street is forecasting 35% growth this year. If Q1 sales come in at -10% YoY, to meet that target Tesla would have to have every other quarter be +50%.
The forecast numbers are always rosey... remember that the Model 3 immediately started producing 500,000 models a year at $35k?
Oh, actually no it sat at $50-60k for the first couple years!
Remember that there are 2 million $40k Cybertrucks on the road!
Oh, actually...
I'm exaggerating a bit, for sure, so please pick away at my anecdotes and numbers.
But $15-20k cybercab. Give me a break
Also note that as of yesterday Elon Musk returned to Tesla from the White House, and today ColoradoTribe is posting on MMM.
Coincidence?!
What happens when Tesla rolls out two new cheaper models this year?
Not enough people are going to buy them because the brand has been destroyed.
You also can't take Musk's word for anything about Tesla. He regularly stretches the truth to the point of breaking. Like how fully autonomous Teslas are just around the corner. And have been announced by Musk that they will go on sale every year for a decade and a half now. Or how the Tesla semi is years behind schedule (was going to be in full production in 2019. No, 2020. I mean, 2021. Nope, 2022. 2023.
2024. OK guys, this time it will be fully in production in 2026). Or how the Cybertruck was clearly released before being fully tested, and has suffered recall after recall (Cant rail falling off because of glue failure, TPMS Malfunction, Faulty inverter, Rearview display delayed image, Windshield wiper malfunctioning, Sail applique separation, Stuck accelerator pedal, Instrument panel fonts).
So when Musk talks about releasing two new models this year? Umm. Maybe, but I wouldn't believe it until I see it.
The forecast numbers are always rosey... remember that the Model 3 immediately started producing 500,000 models a year at $35k?
Oh, actually no it sat at $50-60k for the first couple years!
Remember that there are 2 million $40k Cybertrucks on the road!
Oh, actually...
I'm exaggerating a bit, for sure, so please pick away at my anecdotes and numbers.
But $15-20k cybercab. Give me a break 🤣
Also note that as of yesterday Elon Musk returned to Tesla from the White House, and today ColoradoTribe is posting on MMM.
Coincidence?!
Tesla COGS per vehicle for Q3 2024 was $35,100 according to this article. I know further reductions in COGS was achieved in Q4.
https://cleantechnica.com/2024/10/25/correction-and-confusion-what-are-teslas-next-cheaper-models/
Let's keep in mind this is the average COGS for the entire Tesla fleet, including S and X, CyberTruck, and higher trims of Model 3 and Model Y. Fair to say the COGS for a base Model 3 is currently around $30k, perhaps under.
How does Tesla get from $30k to $20K? For starters, the Cybercab is expected to have roughly 50% fewer parts than a Model 3/Y. How? No steering wheel and ancillary components (turn signal stalks, etc.). Cybercab will use steer-by-wire as already implemented in the CyberTruck. No gas or break pedals or ancillary components. No rear view or side view mirrors and ancillary components like copper wiring, defrosters, and motors. Two seats versus five seats and fewer ancillary components like seat belts and air bags. A smaller cabin to heat and cool (fewer HVAC components). Full implementation of mega-castings and a structural battery pack. Two doors versus four doors. Cybercab lacks the expensive glass roof component found on other Tesla models and will have 3 glass panes compared to 9 glass panes in 3?Y. The cost to add a panoramic glass roof to a production vehicle is around $2k alone. Use of 48 Volt architecture (as done with CT) further reduces production cost by allowing use of smaller, lighter gauge wiring that is cheaper than the wiring currently in Model 3/Y. The production line for Cybercab will also be Tesla's most advanced and most automated to date, further driving down production cost and reducing production time per vehicle. All this before we even look at reducing discretionary/luxury options like reducing the number of audio speakers, using cheaper/smaller diameter tires, or cheaper (non-leather) seats. Just applying what we know now, Tesla can get to $20k per cab without breaking a sweat or compromising performance. This is just a sampling of the stuff already publicly known for anyone willing to look.
Of course every part eliminated comes with a reduction in vehicle weight, which means the Cybercab can achieve the same range as a Model 3 with a much smaller battery pack, which further reduces vehicle weight. Since the battery pack is the single most expensive component in the vehicle this drives a big drop in COGS. Fewer components also means fewer workers/robots needed on the production line. Less maintenance of the line and less down time. You think Ford and GM are capable of driving this kind of cost reduction, technology advancement, innovation and efficiency?
Ya'll need to do your own homework on this stuff and stop reading financial news headlines. This in an investors forum. I feel badly for anyone making an investment decision regarding TSLA based on the ill-informed none-sense and daily hand-wringing posted to this thread. Most of it posted by folks with axes to grind and no skin in the game.
The forecast numbers are always rosey... remember that the Model 3 immediately started producing 500,000 models a year at $35k?
Oh, actually no it sat at $50-60k for the first couple years!
Remember that there are 2 million $40k Cybertrucks on the road!
Oh, actually...
I'm exaggerating a bit, for sure, so please pick away at my anecdotes and numbers.
But $15-20k cybercab. Give me a break 🤣
Also note that as of yesterday Elon Musk returned to Tesla from the White House, and today ColoradoTribe is posting on MMM.
Coincidence?!
Tesla COGS per vehicle for Q3 2024 was $35,100 according to this article. I know further reductions in COGS was achieved in Q4.
https://cleantechnica.com/2024/10/25/correction-and-confusion-what-are-teslas-next-cheaper-models/
Let's keep in mind this is the average COGS for the entire Tesla fleet, including S and X, CyberTruck, and higher trims of Model 3 and Model Y. Fair to say the COGS for a base Model 3 is currently around $30k, perhaps under.
How does Tesla get from $30k to $20K? For starters, the Cybercab is expected to have roughly 50% fewer parts than a Model 3/Y. How? No steering wheel and ancillary components (turn signal stalks, etc.). Cybercab will use steer-by-wire as already implemented in the CyberTruck. No gas or break pedals or ancillary components. No rear view or side view mirrors and ancillary components like copper wiring, defrosters, and motors. Two seats versus five seats and fewer ancillary components like seat belts and air bags. A smaller cabin to heat and cool (fewer HVAC components). Full implementation of mega-castings and a structural battery pack. Two doors versus four doors. Cybercab lacks the expensive glass roof component found on other Tesla models and will have 3 glass panes compared to 9 glass panes in 3?Y. The cost to add a panoramic glass roof to a production vehicle is around $2k alone. Use of 48 Volt architecture (as done with CT) further reduces production cost by allowing use of smaller, lighter gauge wiring that is cheaper than the wiring currently in Model 3/Y. The production line for Cybercab will also be Tesla's most advanced and most automated to date, further driving down production cost and reducing production time per vehicle. All this before we even look at reducing discretionary/luxury options like reducing the number of audio speakers, using cheaper/smaller diameter tires, or cheaper (non-leather) seats. Just applying what we know now, Tesla can get to $20k per cab without breaking a sweat or compromising performance. This is just a sampling of the stuff already publicly known for anyone willing to look.
Of course every part eliminated comes with a reduction in vehicle weight, which means the Cybercab can achieve the same range as a Model 3 with a much smaller battery pack, which further reduces vehicle weight. Since the battery pack is the single most expensive component in the vehicle this drives a big drop in COGS. Fewer components also means fewer workers/robots needed on the production line. Less maintenance of the line and less down time. You think Ford and GM are capable of driving this kind of cost reduction, technology advancement, innovation and efficiency?
Ya'll need to do your own homework on this stuff and stop reading financial news headlines. This in an investors forum. I feel badly for anyone making an investment decision regarding TSLA based on the ill-informed none-sense and daily hand-wringing posted to this thread. Most of it posted by folks with axes to grind and no skin in the game.
I don't think you want to dive too deep into the margin story. Gross margins are rapidly declining, and are on trend to converge with the rest of the automotive industry.
A decent component of this is related to the inner workings of cost accounting. Tesla's CAPEX is still ongoing as if the company were growing at 30%+. Their 2024 CAPEX is going to add about $800M-$1B in 2025 COGS, regardless of sales volume. It could possibly be much higher if their CAPEX is more heavily related towards AI type efforts, as computer equipment depreciates much faster than factories.
Assuming flat sales volumes, their 2024 CAPEX will reduce gross margins by roughly a percentage point. It would be less on a percentage basis with sales growth, but it will be higher on a percentage basis if sales decline.
Steel and aluminum tariffs are also hitting all US automakers hard. Information is hard to come by, but other industries are reporting that their metals costs instantly went up ~30% the day tariffs were announced. Automotive is probably slightly less impacted due to long term contracts and a heavier US presence, but this is still only downward pressure on margins industry wide. There's no magic software patch for bill of material costs.
The forecast numbers are always rosey... remember that the Model 3 immediately started producing 500,000 models a year at $35k?
Oh, actually no it sat at $50-60k for the first couple years!
Remember that there are 2 million $40k Cybertrucks on the road!
Oh, actually...
I'm exaggerating a bit, for sure, so please pick away at my anecdotes and numbers.
But $15-20k cybercab. Give me a break 🤣
Also note that as of yesterday Elon Musk returned to Tesla from the White House, and today ColoradoTribe is posting on MMM.
Coincidence?!
Tesla COGS per vehicle for Q3 2024 was $35,100 according to this article. I know further reductions in COGS was achieved in Q4.
https://cleantechnica.com/2024/10/25/correction-and-confusion-what-are-teslas-next-cheaper-models/
Let's keep in mind this is the average COGS for the entire Tesla fleet, including S and X, CyberTruck, and higher trims of Model 3 and Model Y. Fair to say the COGS for a base Model 3 is currently around $30k, perhaps under.
How does Tesla get from $30k to $20K? For starters, the Cybercab is expected to have roughly 50% fewer parts than a Model 3/Y. How? No steering wheel and ancillary components (turn signal stalks, etc.). Cybercab will use steer-by-wire as already implemented in the CyberTruck. No gas or break pedals or ancillary components. No rear view or side view mirrors and ancillary components like copper wiring, defrosters, and motors. Two seats versus five seats and fewer ancillary components like seat belts and air bags. A smaller cabin to heat and cool (fewer HVAC components). Full implementation of mega-castings and a structural battery pack. Two doors versus four doors. Cybercab lacks the expensive glass roof component found on other Tesla models and will have 3 glass panes compared to 9 glass panes in 3?Y. The cost to add a panoramic glass roof to a production vehicle is around $2k alone. Use of 48 Volt architecture (as done with CT) further reduces production cost by allowing use of smaller, lighter gauge wiring that is cheaper than the wiring currently in Model 3/Y. The production line for Cybercab will also be Tesla's most advanced and most automated to date, further driving down production cost and reducing production time per vehicle. All this before we even look at reducing discretionary/luxury options like reducing the number of audio speakers, using cheaper/smaller diameter tires, or cheaper (non-leather) seats. Just applying what we know now, Tesla can get to $20k per cab without breaking a sweat or compromising performance. This is just a sampling of the stuff already publicly known for anyone willing to look.
Of course every part eliminated comes with a reduction in vehicle weight, which means the Cybercab can achieve the same range as a Model 3 with a much smaller battery pack, which further reduces vehicle weight. Since the battery pack is the single most expensive component in the vehicle this drives a big drop in COGS. Fewer components also means fewer workers/robots needed on the production line. Less maintenance of the line and less down time. You think Ford and GM are capable of driving this kind of cost reduction, technology advancement, innovation and efficiency?
Ya'll need to do your own homework on this stuff and stop reading financial news headlines. This in an investors forum. I feel badly for anyone making an investment decision regarding TSLA based on the ill-informed none-sense and daily hand-wringing posted to this thread. Most of it posted by folks with axes to grind and no skin in the game.
I don't think you want to dive too deep into the margin story. Gross margins are rapidly declining, and are on trend to converge with the rest of the automotive industry.
A decent component of this is related to the inner workings of cost accounting. Tesla's CAPEX is still ongoing as if the company were growing at 30%+. Their 2024 CAPEX is going to add about $800M-$1B in 2025 COGS, regardless of sales volume. It could possibly be much higher if their CAPEX is more heavily related towards AI type efforts, as computer equipment depreciates much faster than factories.
Assuming flat sales volumes, their 2024 CAPEX will reduce gross margins by roughly a percentage point. It would be less on a percentage basis with sales growth, but it will be higher on a percentage basis if sales decline.
Steel and aluminum tariffs are also hitting all US automakers hard. Information is hard to come by, but other industries are reporting that their metals costs instantly went up ~30% the day tariffs were announced. Automotive is probably slightly less impacted due to long term contracts and a heavier US presence, but this is still only downward pressure on margins industry wide. There's no magic software patch for bill of material costs.
The word margin does not appear once in my post that you quoted. We are talking about production costs and COGS and if Tesla can manufacture a Cybercab for the stated $15k-$$20k. Feel free to join that discussion or start a new post about margins. Be sure to discuss the EV margins of Tesla's so called competitors when you do. Be sure to also mention that Tesla has the most American made car in terms of percentage of the vehicle parts sourced from inside the US, making Tesla best positioned to weather a trade war.
CapEx is dedicated to fueling the next revenue growth wave with expenditures related to Cybercab, Optimus robot, semi production plant, and AI capabilities. Exactly what a long term investor would want and expect from a growth company in the tech sector.
Based on it costing Tesla $35k to build a car, they can easily sell a car for $15-20k by dropping a few parts.
OK, even if we accept everything else you say and they get COGS for the Cybercab to $20k... what will they sell it for? Remembering that "production line for Cybercab will also be Tesla's most advanced" <-- this part doesn't come for free.
Looks like ~2024 actual Average Selling Price was ~$40K? So they charge $5k over the $35k COGS for 14% margin? So Cybercab would then be a $23k vehicle if everything aligns and they get COGS to $20k?
1) Tesla global sales down just 1.7% YOY after first two months of 2025.
This is either a misststement, or a misunderstanding. You can't get 1.7% down YoY when your largest markets are down double digits. (See below) YoY means comparable periods.
The video estimates that Tesla has lost, so far, 1.7% of annual sales in Jan-Feb. The premise is that Tesla can make this up, with production of the refreshed Model Y now underway. This is possible, and I do think media conclusions that the drop is 100% political is conveniently ignoring a factory shutdown situation.
But, Wall Street is forecasting 35% growth this year. If Q1 sales come in at -10% YoY, to meet that target Tesla would have to have every other quarter be +50%.
But von Braun rejected Nazism after coming to the US via Operation Paperclip, and his connection to/membership in the Nazi party was not widely known until after his death. Unlike Elon’s.
Oh, so when he came to the USA, he rejected Nazism so everything was totes ok?
"Regarding slave labor, von Braun’s work on the V-2 relied heavily on it. The rockets were produced at facilities like the Mittelwerk factory, part of the Dora-Mittelbau concentration camp complex, where tens of thousands of forced laborers—prisoners, Jews, and others—worked under brutal conditions. Estimates suggest that around 20,000 laborers died due to exhaustion, malnutrition, or execution during the production process. Von Braun was aware of these conditions; he visited the Mittelwerk site multiple times and, in some instances, personally requested labor from concentration camps, as documented in surviving correspondence."
Nope. I am aware of all that and started a whole thread on Nazis in America. Would love more traction on that because it’s definitely deeper than I realized.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/the-ongoing-problem-of-nazis-in-america-past-and-present/
Not in the mood to be argued with & misunderstood today.
My sole point was that Elon has NOT disavowed Nazis nor apologized for throwing a salute, indeed he has done the opposite and implied Nazis shouldn’t be judged for their “culture”. Further, and perhaps more sinister, he both admires von Braun and then claims to be surprised —years apart— that he’s possibly named after a character in von Braun’s sci-fi novel. This is sinister because it’s clearly a narcissistic lie where he’s pretended more than once to be surprised that his name is associated with Von Braun (regardless of whether or not it’s true that his dad named him for the character).
https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/02/04/musk-leader-mars/
Can you please let this nonsense go. Elon directly addressed the "salute" in the 10-15 minute-ish mark of his last Joe Rogan podcast interview, #2281. He is not a nazi. It's incredible to me that this BS has gained so much traction and so many people have jumped on the shit on Elon train. Name one other person who has done more for green energy and to help transition from ICE vehicles to BEVs.
The forecast numbers are always rosey... remember that the Model 3 immediately started producing 500,000 models a year at $35k?
Oh, actually no it sat at $50-60k for the first couple years!
Remember that there are 2 million $40k Cybertrucks on the road!
Oh, actually...
I'm exaggerating a bit, for sure, so please pick away at my anecdotes and numbers.
But $15-20k cybercab. Give me a break 🤣
Also note that as of yesterday Elon Musk returned to Tesla from the White House, and today ColoradoTribe is posting on MMM.
Coincidence?!
Tesla COGS per vehicle for Q3 2024 was $35,100 according to this article. I know further reductions in COGS was achieved in Q4.
https://cleantechnica.com/2024/10/25/correction-and-confusion-what-are-teslas-next-cheaper-models/
Let's keep in mind this is the average COGS for the entire Tesla fleet, including S and X, CyberTruck, and higher trims of Model 3 and Model Y. Fair to say the COGS for a base Model 3 is currently around $30k, perhaps under.
How does Tesla get from $30k to $20K? For starters, the Cybercab is expected to have roughly 50% fewer parts than a Model 3/Y. How? No steering wheel and ancillary components (turn signal stalks, etc.). Cybercab will use steer-by-wire as already implemented in the CyberTruck. No gas or break pedals or ancillary components. No rear view or side view mirrors and ancillary components like copper wiring, defrosters, and motors. Two seats versus five seats and fewer ancillary components like seat belts and air bags. A smaller cabin to heat and cool (fewer HVAC components). Full implementation of mega-castings and a structural battery pack. Two doors versus four doors. Cybercab lacks the expensive glass roof component found on other Tesla models and will have 3 glass panes compared to 9 glass panes in 3?Y. The cost to add a panoramic glass roof to a production vehicle is around $2k alone. Use of 48 Volt architecture (as done with CT) further reduces production cost by allowing use of smaller, lighter gauge wiring that is cheaper than the wiring currently in Model 3/Y. The production line for Cybercab will also be Tesla's most advanced and most automated to date, further driving down production cost and reducing production time per vehicle. All this before we even look at reducing discretionary/luxury options like reducing the number of audio speakers, using cheaper/smaller diameter tires, or cheaper (non-leather) seats. Just applying what we know now, Tesla can get to $20k per cab without breaking a sweat or compromising performance. This is just a sampling of the stuff already publicly known for anyone willing to look.
Of course every part eliminated comes with a reduction in vehicle weight, which means the Cybercab can achieve the same range as a Model 3 with a much smaller battery pack, which further reduces vehicle weight. Since the battery pack is the single most expensive component in the vehicle this drives a big drop in COGS. Fewer components also means fewer workers/robots needed on the production line. Less maintenance of the line and less down time. You think Ford and GM are capable of driving this kind of cost reduction, technology advancement, innovation and efficiency?
Ya'll need to do your own homework on this stuff and stop reading financial news headlines. This in an investors forum. I feel badly for anyone making an investment decision regarding TSLA based on the ill-informed none-sense and daily hand-wringing posted to this thread. Most of it posted by folks with axes to grind and no skin in the game.
I don't think you want to dive too deep into the margin story. Gross margins are rapidly declining, and are on trend to converge with the rest of the automotive industry.
A decent component of this is related to the inner workings of cost accounting. Tesla's CAPEX is still ongoing as if the company were growing at 30%+. Their 2024 CAPEX is going to add about $800M-$1B in 2025 COGS, regardless of sales volume. It could possibly be much higher if their CAPEX is more heavily related towards AI type efforts, as computer equipment depreciates much faster than factories.
Assuming flat sales volumes, their 2024 CAPEX will reduce gross margins by roughly a percentage point. It would be less on a percentage basis with sales growth, but it will be higher on a percentage basis if sales decline.
Steel and aluminum tariffs are also hitting all US automakers hard. Information is hard to come by, but other industries are reporting that their metals costs instantly went up ~30% the day tariffs were announced. Automotive is probably slightly less impacted due to long term contracts and a heavier US presence, but this is still only downward pressure on margins industry wide. There's no magic software patch for bill of material costs.
The word margin does not appear once in my post that you quoted. We are talking about production costs and COGS and if Tesla can manufacture a Cybercab for the stated $15k-$$20k. Feel free to join that discussion or start a new post about margins. Be sure to discuss the EV margins of Tesla's so called competitors when you do. Be sure to also mention that Tesla has the most American made car in terms of percentage of the vehicle parts sourced from inside the US, making Tesla best positioned to weather a trade war.
CapEx is dedicated to fueling the next revenue growth wave with expenditures related to Cybercab, Optimus robot, semi production plant, and AI capabilities. Exactly what a long term investor would want and expect from a growth company in the tech sector.
Can you at least touch on the current reputation hit that Tesla has taken over the last 2 months or so? I enjoy your perspective, but I feel like ignoring the fact that a large population now views Tesla as an evil company that they do not want anything to do with. I just don't see how Tesla recovers from this and it's unfortunate because they have done so much for making electric cars "cool" and accessible to consumers.
Based on it costing Tesla $35k to build a car, they can easily sell a car for $15-20k by dropping a few parts.
OK, even if we accept everything else you say and they get COGS for the Cybercab to $20k... what will they sell it for? Remembering that "production line for Cybercab will also be Tesla's most advanced" <-- this part doesn't come for free.
Looks like ~2024 actual Average Selling Price was ~$40K? So they charge $5k over the $35k COGS for 14% margin? So Cybercab would then be a $23k vehicle if everything aligns and they get COGS to $20k?
No need to take my word on anything. Everything I state in my post is publicly available information and verifiable. Dig in.
Sell it!? Why would Tesla sell a money printing machine that will recoup the cost of production in a matter of months? First priority will be owning and operating their own fleet of Tesla Cybercabs. Sales will come later, if at all, after the economics of the Cybercab are proven out.
Based on it costing Tesla $35k to build a car, they can easily sell a car for $15-20k by dropping a few parts.
OK, even if we accept everything else you say and they get COGS for the Cybercab to $20k... what will they sell it for? Remembering that "production line for Cybercab will also be Tesla's most advanced" <-- this part doesn't come for free.
Looks like ~2024 actual Average Selling Price was ~$40K? So they charge $5k over the $35k COGS for 14% margin? So Cybercab would then be a $23k vehicle if everything aligns and they get COGS to $20k?
No need to take my word on anything. Everything I state in my post is publicly available information and verifiable. Dig in.
Sell it!? Why would Tesla sell a money printing machine that will recoup the cost of production in a matter of months? First priority will be owning and operating their own fleet of Tesla Cybercabs. Sales will come later, if at all, after the economics of the Cybercab are proven out.
I think this is an important point. Cybercabs are not vehicles in the consumer small car segment. If Tesla is going to operate the cybercab network, that means the revenue on Day 1 is $0. And the promised launch scope is...Austin?
There aren't enough cabs / ubers in Austin for Tesla to replace, to make a meaningful revenue impact. Waymo operates in LA, San Fran, and Phoenix, and is going to DC, with a fleet of 700. Scaling up a new cab company requires a lot more than the vehicles: they need regulatory approval, facilities, and people. So, if this was 3 months from launch, wouldn't we be hearing about more markets, to scale to mass production?
Or, maybe Tesla is being cautious, this one time. While I would applaud a considered testing approach, it's totally against Tesla's character.
Tesla has said they view individuals or commercial enterprises owning the assets they operate. But it's hard to see that without some data on the payback. At the very least, the price will be impacted by the risk being taken on.
So, either scaling up (eating production cost, then having to compete for ride revenue) or a small start (Austin as test, where to go next?) looks to me like Tesla is a long way off from Cybercab being a profitable enterprise.
Are you saying you think Tesla will go broke making Cybercabs before those cabs produce positive revenue for Tesla? If so, I'd say the chances of that are zero.
I'm not sure what the concern is based on what you are expressing here? Tesla has regulatory approval to operate a Cybercab network in Austin starting in June.
Are you saying you think Tesla will go broke making Cybercabs before those cabs produce positive revenue for Tesla? If so, I'd say the chances of that are zero.
Are you saying you think Tesla will go broke making Cybercabs before those cabs produce positive revenue for Tesla? If so, I'd say the chances of that are zero.
What was the investment to R&D, build tooling, and produce the Cybertruck, and what is their current ROI?
What are the assumptions on Cybercab ROI?
e.g. $0.10 / mile driven, 20,000 miles per year, so $2000 or 10% ROI every year?
Relying exclusively on vision and “neural nets” is a laughable strategy.
Would you fly in a commercial jet if reassured that it was being piloted with a vision system and neural nets exclusively?
Let’s think about things that navigate beyond cars. Things like defense systems, submarines, planes, trains you need multiple instruments and sensors in order to ascertain your surroundings when visibility is problematic, or there are other difficult conditions. once again musk is hamstrung by his hubris. He has created a brilliant infallible system — that does not even work right now. Meanwhile, Waymo is using lidar, radar, vision and human oversight — and has several years of real world experience.
I do think the idea that every individual Tesla would become a cyber cab for the owner is a compelling thought experiment. But I don’t think there’s any proof that that can happen as the cars are currently instrumented.
I love technology and don’t doubt that when well designed it can be miraculous.
I’m not comparing vision+neural net to a human. I’m comparing it to the competition.
End-to-end learning is also problematic. I guess it is characteristic of a Musk company that they would double down on a singular (& cheap) solution rather than try to ensure success by making a robust solution that selects the best-of-breed technologies used by other transportation modalities.
I also, as an investor, wouldn’t believe any company that claims to have an AI moat. AI is becoming commoditized.
Relying exclusively on vision and “neural nets” is a laughable strategy.
Would you fly in a commercial jet if reassured that it was being piloted with a vision system and neural nets exclusively?
Let’s think about things that navigate beyond cars. Things like defense systems, submarines, planes, trains you need multiple instruments and sensors in order to ascertain your surroundings when visibility is problematic, or there are other difficult conditions. once again musk is hamstrung by his hubris. He has created a brilliant infallible system — that does not even work right now. Meanwhile, Waymo is using lidar, radar, vision and human oversight — and has several years of real world experience.
I do think the idea that every individual Tesla would become a cyber cab for the owner is a compelling thought experiment. But I don’t think there’s any proof that that can happen as the cars are currently instrumented.
Have you ridden in a Tesla operating under FSD supervised? I have.
How do you drive a car? You use vision (eyeballs) and a neural net (brain) to operate the car. Same as Tesla, except the AI is never emotional, or tired, or drunk, or distracted, or sleepy, or get s a leg cramp. The neural net also has the advantage of billions of miles of collective driving experience and 9 cameras (or nine sets of eyeballs) constantly surveying blind spots and approaching traffic. And reaction time superior to any human.
Given how many examples there are in the world where a machine/computer is superior to a human at performing a task (greater speed, accuracy, precision, etc), its seems like hubris or naiveté to believe a human's ability to drive a car can never be surpassed. In fact, the current version of FSD is already as good as an average human driver under most conditions and is improving exponentially.
We are constantly, as a society, triangulating between cost, risk, and safety. Is it worth 10X the cost for a nebulous gain in safety, when Tesla's FSD brings cost effective autonomous driving to the masses and dramatically reduces the number of fatalities on the road each year? Widespread adoption is what is needed to drive down fatalities, not added cost for little to no actual safety gains.
Everyone keeps mentioning Tesla approval for the Cybercab in Austin. Is there a link to this regulatory approval? Is it like California's approval, which is employees only with a driver?
Texas amended its transportation code in 2017 to allow autonomous vehicles to operate on its roads, and it took away any ability for local governments to restrict testing or deployment.
Texas' rules say that autonomous vehicles are allowed to operate throughout the state as long as they comply with state traffic and vehicle laws and conform to federal rules regarding vehicle safety and AVs
I love technology and don’t doubt that when well designed it can be miraculous.
I’m not comparing vision+neural net to a human. I’m comparing it to the competition.
End-to-end learning is also problematic. I guess it is characteristic of a Musk company that they would double down on a singular (& cheap) solution rather than try to ensure success by making a robust solution that selects the best-of-breed technologies used by other transportation modalities.
I also, as an investor, wouldn’t believe any company that claims to have an AI moat. AI is becoming commoditized.
By your logic, Ford is cutting corners on safety because it doesn't offer lidar as a driver assist/safety feature on its current cars. More is always better right?
Again, if humans are deemed safe enough to drive using our brains (neural net) and and eyeballs (vision) without the addition of Lidar, why would we deem it necessary for a superior neural net with superior vision (9 cameras with faster reaction time) to add lidar?
We are constantly, as a society, triangulating between cost, risk, and safety. Is it worth 10X the cost for a nebulous gain in safety, when Tesla's FSD brings cost effective autonomous driving to the masses and dramatically reduces the number of fatalities on the road each year? Widespread adoption is what is needed to drive down fatalities, not added cost for little to no actual safety gains.
What was the investment to R&D, build tooling, and produce the Cybertruck, and what is their current ROI?
What are the assumptions on Cybercab ROI?
The average cost of an Uber ride in the US is $2/mile. Let's assume a Cybercab undercuts this at $1.50/mile average. A Cybercab can operate 16 hours a day, leaving 8 hrs for recharging, maintenance and down time. Let's assume an average speed of 35 mph. So, 16hrs x 35 mph = 560 miles/day x 7days/week x 52 weeks = 203k miles/yr. Let's be super conservative and assume suboptimal utilization and each Cybercab does 100k billable miles per year. At $1.50/mile that's $150k in revenue per Cybercab per year. Fuel cost is roughly $0.15 per KwH. Cybercab gets 6 miles per KwH. So, annual fuel cost is $2,500 (assuming Tesla does provide their own energy via solar). Upkeep on a Cybercab is minimal. Cordless charging pads and robotic car cleaners take care of refueling and cleaning while charging. Maintenance cost is near zero. No scheduled maintenance in year one for a Tesla. Maybe some wiper fluid and one set of new tires. Let's put fueling, cleaning, registration fees and maintenance cost in year one at $5,000. Feel free to double that to $10k, it doesn't matter.
So, a Cybercab with a production cost of $15k rolls off the line and is accepting passengers the next day in Austin. In year 1 it generates $150k in revenue and costs $5k to operate, netting $145k for Tesla in year one. A nearly 10X ROI in the first year. The cab would pay for itself in under 2 months and produce enough profit in year 1 to build 6 additional Cybercabs.
Driving to and from initial pickup locations
Circling or waiting for fares
Returning to taxi stands
Repositioning between potential high-demand areas
Personal or maintenance-related driving
Here's a question though. Why are you questioning the economics of the Cybercab on an investor forum and asking others to do research that you could have done on your own before posting shade about the product?
Everyone keeps mentioning Tesla approval for the Cybercab in Austin. Is there a link to this regulatory approval? Is it like California's approval, which is employees only with a driver?QuoteTexas amended its transportation code in 2017 to allow autonomous vehicles to operate on its roads, and it took away any ability for local governments to restrict testing or deployment.QuoteTexas' rules say that autonomous vehicles are allowed to operate throughout the state as long as they comply with state traffic and vehicle laws and conform to federal rules regarding vehicle safety and AVs
- https://arstechnica.com/cars/2025/02/tesla-turns-to-texas-to-test-its-autonomous-cybercab/ (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2025/02/tesla-turns-to-texas-to-test-its-autonomous-cybercab/)
Relying exclusively on vision and “neural nets” is a laughable strategy.
Would you fly in a commercial jet if reassured that it was being piloted with a vision system and neural nets exclusively?
Let’s think about things that navigate beyond cars. Things like defense systems, submarines, planes, trains you need multiple instruments and sensors in order to ascertain your surroundings when visibility is problematic, or there are other difficult conditions. once again musk is hamstrung by his hubris. He has created a brilliant infallible system — that does not even work right now. Meanwhile, Waymo is using lidar, radar, vision and human oversight — and has several years of real world experience.
I do think the idea that every individual Tesla would become a cyber cab for the owner is a compelling thought experiment. But I don’t think there’s any proof that that can happen as the cars are currently instrumented.
Have you ridden in a Tesla operating under FSD supervised? I have.
How do you drive a car? You use vision (eyeballs) and a neural net (brain) to operate the car. Same as Tesla, except the AI is never emotional, or tired, or drunk, or distracted, or sleepy, or get s a leg cramp. The neural net also has the advantage of billions of miles of collective driving experience and 9 cameras (or nine sets of eyeballs) constantly surveying blind spots and approaching traffic. And reaction time superior to any human.
Given how many examples there are in the world where a machine/computer is superior to a human at performing a task (greater speed, accuracy, precision, etc), its seems like hubris or naiveté to believe a human's ability to drive a car can never be surpassed. In fact, the current version of FSD is already as good as an average human driver under most conditions and is improving exponentially.
What do you think the realistic revenue potential is for this robotaxi service, and what are realistic margins?
I did the math further up-thread, but a highly optimistic scenario seems to be a $10B - $15B/yr business in a decade. However, it would most likely be significantly lower than this. For context, Tesla already has about $100B in revenue.
It also isn't an 80%+ margin AI company. It's not even a 30-50% margin business. It's a capital inefficient business that can probably get to 20% gross margins initially, which would go down to the 10% range if they try to price below human-operated cars.
It's combining the capital inefficiency of a car manufacturer with the capital inefficiency of Zipcar or Hertz. Except Zipcar has a secondary market for their cars that a robotaxi won't.
It may turn into a worthwhile business venture (I'm skeptical of this, but don't rule it out), but the idea that it should command some valuation premium is pretty absurd.
I love technology and don’t doubt that when well designed it can be miraculous.
I’m not comparing vision+neural net to a human. I’m comparing it to the competition.
End-to-end learning is also problematic. I guess it is characteristic of a Musk company that they would double down on a singular (& cheap) solution rather than try to ensure success by making a robust solution that selects the best-of-breed technologies used by other transportation modalities.
I also, as an investor, wouldn’t believe any company that claims to have an AI moat. AI is becoming commoditized.
By your logic, Ford is cutting corners on safety because it doesn't offer lidar as a driver assist/safety feature on its current cars. More is always better right?
Again, if humans are deemed safe enough to drive using our brains (neural net) and and eyeballs (vision) without the addition of Lidar, why would we deem it necessary for a superior neural net with superior vision (9 cameras with faster reaction time) to add lidar?
We are constantly, as a society, triangulating between cost, risk, and safety. Is it worth 10X the cost for a nebulous gain in safety, when Tesla's FSD brings cost effective autonomous driving to the masses and dramatically reduces the number of fatalities on the road each year? Widespread adoption is what is needed to drive down fatalities, not added cost for little to no actual safety gains.
It’s notable that you don’t address the specific points I made. Instead of comparing future Teslas to Ford’s existing human-piloted cars, can you compare them to Waymo’s?
Or, how about comparing FSD to other companies’ ADAS:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brookecrothers/2024/12/29/tesla-full-self-driving-vs-the-rest-be-very-careful-choosing-your-next-ev/
This is more evidence that any self-driving moat is fast disappearing.
Also, what is your evidence that the FSD neural net is equal or superior to a human brain? Does Tesla publicly test with things like https://github.com/carla-simulator/leaderboard/blob/master/README.md
How confident are you in end-to-end reinforcement learning (the Tesla and Wayze approach), including for testing, scalability and extensibility?
It's less a question of if and more a question of when. Once FSD unsupervised gets regulatory approval, no one will buy a car in the US that doesn't come with FSD capability, which means every car company will need to either license Tesla's software or spend billions trying to create their AI capabilities and a data set of billions of miles driven to train their own neural net. Regulatory approval is a given once insurance companies and regulators see data showing how many lives and dollars FSD saves.
Even the most optimistic folks agree that there will be deaths and injury due to automated driving. Are the costs associated with those deaths accounted for in the profits? How does one insure an automated vehicle?
I'm not sure what the concern is based on what you are expressing here? Tesla has regulatory approval to operate a Cybercab network in Austin starting in June. How many vehicles is rather irrelevant at this stage. They will use Austin to work out kinks and as proof of concept. In the meantime, a Cybercab production line is underway in the Austin Gigafactory. Once Tesla is satisfied with the Austin trial results, they will expand to other cities and fire up mass production. At this stage, the number of Tesla Cybercabs surpasses the number of Waymos in a matter or weeks.
Tesla is cash flow positive and sitting on billions (16B+ end of Q4). It does not matter that they have to front the cost of each Cybercab ($15-$20k). Those vehicles will pay for themselves in less than a year and then start generating revenue for Tesla to build more Cybercabs (snowball rolling downhill at this point).
Reminder here that every Tesla with HW4 or better also becomes a cybercab for its owner the day unsupervised FSD is approved on a state or federal level. Additionally, unlike Waymo, Tesla doesn't have to GPS map and geofence each new service area. Tesla's vision + neural net FSD model will enable a new cybercab to operate anywhere in the US just like any human driver in the US is capable of flying into a city they've never visited before and operate a car safely.
What was the investment to R&D, build tooling, and produce the Cybertruck, and what is their current ROI?
What are the assumptions on Cybercab ROI?
The average cost of an Uber ride in the US is $2/mile. Let's assume a Cybercab undercuts this at $1.50/mile average. A Cybercab can operate 16 hours a day, leaving 8 hrs for recharging, maintenance and down time. Let's assume an average speed of 35 mph. So, 16hrs x 35 mph = 560 miles/day x 7days/week x 52 weeks = 203k miles/yr. Let's be super conservative and assume suboptimal utilization and each Cybercab does 100k billable miles per year. At $1.50/mile that's $150k in revenue per Cybercab per year. Fuel cost is roughly $0.15 per KwH. Cybercab gets 6 miles per KwH. So, annual fuel cost is $2,500 (assuming Tesla does provide their own energy via solar). Upkeep on a Cybercab is minimal. Cordless charging pads and robotic car cleaners take care of refueling and cleaning while charging. Maintenance cost is near zero. No scheduled maintenance in year one for a Tesla. Maybe some wiper fluid and one set of new tires. Let's put fueling, cleaning, registration fees and maintenance cost in year one at $5,000. Feel free to double that to $10k, it doesn't matter.
So, a Cybercab with a production cost of $15k rolls off the line and is accepting passengers the next day in Austin. In year 1 it generates $150k in revenue and costs $5k to operate, netting $145k for Tesla in year one. A nearly 10X ROI in the first year. The cab would pay for itself in under 2 months and produce enough profit in year 1 to build 6 additional Cybercabs.
Would like better sources, but claude.ai says that 30-40% of taxi miles driven are paid / with passengers and 60-70% are between fares. Some of those reasons wouldn't apply if there's no human, though many would:QuoteDriving to and from initial pickup locations
Circling or waiting for fares
Returning to taxi stands
Repositioning between potential high-demand areas
Personal or maintenance-related driving
Obviously "returning to charging port" would be on there. Human taxi drivers seem to drive 45-70k, though depending on charge cycles, as well as peak and off-peak hours, it's fine to estimate 100k total miles being driven by an autonomous electric taxi.
Now assuming 50% of those are paid, because the machines are just better at algorithms than the existing humans + dispatch + software, you're looking at 100k miles, 50k in fares. Estimates for economy taxi rides in Austin, Tx are already around $1.50 / mile, so perhaps they undercut it at $1.25 / mile? And the only cost is $0.15 / mile electric charging. So over 100k miles, that's $15,000 in fuel cost, and $62,500 in revenue. (And as mentioned above, $5-10k in "other maintenance", hand-wavy napkin math!) If all of that checks out, it's still close to $40k / year profit per vehicle if all the assumptions are correct.Here's a question though. Why are you questioning the economics of the Cybercab on an investor forum and asking others to do research that you could have done on your own before posting shade about the product?
Are the only people that can question if TSLA is a good investment, the people that are for investing? How about some contrary opinions so we can think about the things we haven't already? That goes both ways. If you're against it, why aren't you allowed to ask "why am I wrong, how could I be convinced this would be worth my investment dollars?"
Everyone keeps mentioning Tesla approval for the Cybercab in Austin. Is there a link to this regulatory approval? Is it like California's approval, which is employees only with a driver?QuoteTexas amended its transportation code in 2017 to allow autonomous vehicles to operate on its roads, and it took away any ability for local governments to restrict testing or deployment.QuoteTexas' rules say that autonomous vehicles are allowed to operate throughout the state as long as they comply with state traffic and vehicle laws and conform to federal rules regarding vehicle safety and AVs
I imagine, even in a mature AEV market, there will exist a role for teleoperators. What matters is the ratio of teleoperator to AEVs and the rate of needed interventions/rescues. If one teleoperator can efficiently oversee 100 AEVs, does that mean they're not really autonomous? I don't know the current ratio, but I suspect this is where we are headed.
- https://arstechnica.com/cars/2025/02/tesla-turns-to-texas-to-test-its-autonomous-cybercab/ (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2025/02/tesla-turns-to-texas-to-test-its-autonomous-cybercab/)
Ok, so there's no approval process.
Tesla is hiring teleoperators. That's...good I guess?
https://www.tesla.com/careers/search/job/c-software-engineer-teleoperation-tesla-bot-and-robotaxi-227959
"As we iterate on the AI that powers them, we need the ability to access and control them remotely. "
I watched that YT short. Pure politics. All Pinchai says is that Tesla is the leader, Tesla and Waymo are the top two. Also I wouldn’t trust a single tech CEO as far as I could drop kick them down the road. Especially those toadying to presidents Trump/Musk.
I am asking more specifically about what experts in self driving have to say! What are the academics studying, what are the training/testing systems out there now and how does Tesla rate on them?
Still haven’t addressed any of my other questions. Not about the potential or the future of end-to-end reinforcement learning for self-driving, or “neural nets” in general. But about the current capability.
I just posted above an article comparing FSD to other advanced driving systems. Notably, the author said that while FSD was extremely impressive and, unlike all the others, offered highway driving, THEY DID NOT TRUST IT to not occasionally do stupid or weird things.
I'm not sure what the concern is based on what you are expressing here? Tesla has regulatory approval to operate a Cybercab network in Austin starting in June. How many vehicles is rather irrelevant at this stage. They will use Austin to work out kinks and as proof of concept. In the meantime, a Cybercab production line is underway in the Austin Gigafactory. Once Tesla is satisfied with the Austin trial results, they will expand to other cities and fire up mass production. At this stage, the number of Tesla Cybercabs surpasses the number of Waymos in a matter or weeks.
Tesla is cash flow positive and sitting on billions (16B+ end of Q4). It does not matter that they have to front the cost of each Cybercab ($15-$20k). Those vehicles will pay for themselves in less than a year and then start generating revenue for Tesla to build more Cybercabs (snowball rolling downhill at this point).
Reminder here that every Tesla with HW4 or better also becomes a cybercab for its owner the day unsupervised FSD is approved on a state or federal level. Additionally, unlike Waymo, Tesla doesn't have to GPS map and geofence each new service area. Tesla's vision + neural net FSD model will enable a new cybercab to operate anywhere in the US just like any human driver in the US is capable of flying into a city they've never visited before and operate a car safely.
I don't have an opinion on the economic of the Cybercab, but I think you are overstating the capabilties and understating the difficulty. We don't have many details about the Austin rollout, but it it almost certainly will be geofenced (https://electrek.co/2025/03/26/tesla-hypes-unsupervised-full-self-driving-june-actually-launch/#:~:text=What%20will%20Tesla%20actually%20launch,enable%20millions%20of%20robotaxis%20overnight.) (it definitely will only be operating in a limited area) and use will remote human monitoring. That poses one of the same challenges that Waymo has, namely it is difficult to scale.
Even the Austin experiment is a smash hit, Tesla is only in the beginning phases of the permit process in California and no other locations that I'm aware of. Picking up passengers for hire is a regulated industry everywhere, and I don't think the regulatory framework for autonomous pickup even exists in most locations, so I'm not at all as optimistic as you that it can expand in a matter of weeks once the tech is developed. If the tech was available right now, it would still be a matter of years, not weeks.
Reminder here, that Musk previously promised that every Tesla with HW3 or better could be fully autonomous without hardware updates. As per Tesla, that promise has been broken. From an investing standpoint, it would be prudent to be skeptical about other claims in this area without some form of verification. It is a reasonable question to ask if HW4 will actually be sufficient as promised, or if it will require a further hardware update.
Finally, I watched the video you posted and it basically echoed Tesla's position that most of the recent drop is attributable to the Model Y refresh (which despite what the video stated has been widely reported in the press). However, that's not dealing with the elephant in the room. Namely, Tesla lost both sales and marketshare in 2024 compared to 2023, even as the global EV market grew by 25%.
Since this is a stock analysis board, let's do a little analysis:
Net Income
2022: $12.56 billion
2023: $15.0 billion
2024: $7.09 billion
Profit Margin
2022: 15.4%
2023: 15.5%
2024: 7.3%
7.3% margin is still good for a car company, but terrible for a tech company. Decreasing margins to increase market share isn't necessarily a bad thing, but Tesla isn't increasing sales or market share. Decreasing margins to maintain sales should be a red flag to investors.
As an aside, I just checked the Tesla website, and refreshed Model Y's are available for immediate delivery, no backlog.
Even the most optimistic folks agree that there will be deaths and injury due to automated driving. Are the costs associated with those deaths accounted for in the profits? How does one insure an automated vehicle?
We are constantly, as a society, triangulating between cost, risk, and safety. Is it worth 10X the cost for a nebulous gain in safety, when Tesla's FSD brings cost effective autonomous driving to the masses and dramatically reduces the number of fatalities on the road each year? Widespread adoption is what is needed to drive down fatalities, not added cost for little to no actual safety gains.
I am all for this eventually happening. Safer roads are better, and if driving automation gets us there, great. But don't put the cart before the horse, we do need to get there first.
From 2021 to the end of 2023, Teslas had 736 crashes, 17 of them fatal, while using automation. That gives FSD a fatal accident rate of 11.3 deaths per 100 million miles travelled. Humans driving in 2022 had a fatal accident rate of 1.35 deaths per 100 million miles travelled. Tesla vehicles themselves are the most crashed on the road. Tesla drivers are involved in 26.67 accidents per 1,000 drivers (more than any other vehicle brand). - (https://www.planetearthandbeyond.co/p/self-driving-cars-are-way-more-dangerous (https://www.planetearthandbeyond.co/p/self-driving-cars-are-way-more-dangerous))
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's analysis concluded that the Tesla Autopilot death rate is higher than reported estimates. Incidents were caused by the ADAS failing to recognize other vehicles, insufficient Autopilot driver engagement, and (they argue) poor operational design. - (https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebanker/2025/02/11/tesla-again-has-the-highest-accident-rate-of-any-auto-brand/ (https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebanker/2025/02/11/tesla-again-has-the-highest-accident-rate-of-any-auto-brand/))
It really doesn't sound like FSD is yet ready for prime time. Now granted, with Musk running the government it seems unlikely that the NHTSA will be involved in blocking Tesla from doing anything they want in the future . . . but it doesn't paint as rosy a picture as you have been making.Everyone keeps mentioning Tesla approval for the Cybercab in Austin. Is there a link to this regulatory approval? Is it like California's approval, which is employees only with a driver?QuoteTexas amended its transportation code in 2017 to allow autonomous vehicles to operate on its roads, and it took away any ability for local governments to restrict testing or deployment.QuoteTexas' rules say that autonomous vehicles are allowed to operate throughout the state as long as they comply with state traffic and vehicle laws and conform to federal rules regarding vehicle safety and AVs
- https://arstechnica.com/cars/2025/02/tesla-turns-to-texas-to-test-its-autonomous-cybercab/ (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2025/02/tesla-turns-to-texas-to-test-its-autonomous-cybercab/)
If Tesla bankrupts ride share services like Uber and Lyft and traditional taxi services, what does that do to utilization rates and billable miles per year per CC?
If the cost of using Tesla AEVs is so cheap as to undercut the cost of car ownership in urban and suburban locations what does that do to utilization rates and billable miles/year? If folks start forgoing car ownership and relying entirely on AEVs for ground transportation?
Now include RND and Capex from your numbers above to tell the true picture. It's this RND and Capex that is going to fuel the next wave of growth. Those billions spent on Capex and RND is Tesla's competitive advantage going forward and while it eats into current margins and profit, it will field future growth. If Tesla were focused on growing car sales I would be concerned with last year's numbers. However, for better or worse, Tesla is focused on AI, FSD, and Optimus. If successful any one of these revenue streams will dwarf car revenue. Margins and revenue from battery storage products also continue to grow and will eventually equal or exceed car revenue. EV market share will increase with Model Y refresh and introduction of lower cost models that will increase TAM from 5% to 34-40%.
I watched that YT short. Pure politics. All Pinchai says is that Tesla is the leader, Tesla and Waymo are the top two. Also I wouldn’t trust a single tech CEO as far as I could drop kick them down the road. Especially those toadying to presidents Trump/Musk.
I am asking more specifically about what experts in self driving have to say! What are the academics studying, what are the training/testing systems out there now and how does Tesla rate on them?
Still haven’t addressed any of my other questions. Not about the potential or the future of end-to-end reinforcement learning for self-driving, or “neural nets” in general. But about the current capability.
I just posted above an article comparing FSD to other advanced driving systems. Notably, the author said that while FSD was extremely impressive and, unlike all the others, offered highway driving, THEY DID NOT TRUST IT to not occasionally do stupid or weird things.
Goodness. You wouldn't trust the word of a tech CEO that puts his own product behind a competitors? That's about the only time I would trust them. Your explanation is he's trying to curry favor with the incoming administration at the risk of demoralizing his own workers and pissing off his investors and shareholders. Is there really any reason to converse further if these are the lengths you're willing to go to avoid giving Tesla any due credit? I know my answer.
Suggestion, why don't you answer some of your own questions and and value my time. I offered several responses today to multiple posters, including you, and provided a lot of substance and citations along the way. Have you answered my questions?
Why doesn't Ford include lidar on its ICE vehicles if its so important a safety feature above the neural net and vision used by both humans and FSD to operate a car?
There are roughly 40,000 vehicular deaths a year in the US. This is a low bar for an AEV to clear. Of course we are not going to reduce deaths to zero, but if we can cut that number by 90% why wouldn't we do it? An AI driver will never drive distracted, tired, impaired or recklessly. An AI driver will never have road rage and cause an accident. What insurance company wouldn't insure an AEV if it was 90% less likely to be involved in a fatal accident compared to insuring a human driver? Cost of insuring will fall to the owner of the AEV, but cost of insuring each vehicle will be less than the cost of insuring a human driver and easily covered by revenue generated by a robotaxi.
Specifically, a Tesla operated with autopilot is 6X LESS likely to get in an accident compared to the US average.
https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
Even the most optimistic folks agree that there will be deaths and injury due to automated driving. Are the costs associated with those deaths accounted for in the profits? How does one insure an automated vehicle?
There are roughly 40,000 vehicular deaths a year in the US. This is a low bar for an AEV to clear. Of course we are not going to reduce deaths to zero, but if we can cut that number by 90% why wouldn't we do it? An AI driver will never drive distracted, tired, impaired or recklessly. An AI driver will never have road rage and cause an accident. What insurance company wouldn't insure an AEV if it was 90% less likely to be involved in a fatal accident compared to insuring a human driver? Cost of insuring will fall to the owner of the AEV, but cost of insuring each vehicle will be less than the cost of insuring a human driver and easily covered by revenue generated by a robotaxi.
Specifically, a Tesla operated with autopilot is 6X LESS likely to get in an accident compared to the US average.
https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
When death rates from driving fall in line with death rates from riding public transportation, flying on an airplane, or riding in a train, we will surrender control, just like we do in these other situations ,because we will deem the risk acceptable and better for society at large compared to the alternative of another 40,000 souls a year.
Even the most optimistic folks agree that there will be deaths and injury due to automated driving. Are the costs associated with those deaths accounted for in the profits? How does one insure an automated vehicle?Buddy, this is the country that once debated outlawing cigarettes, and then opted not to because it would hurt the stock market and eliminate jobs. We'll happily accept the sacrifice of a few thousand bicyclists and babies in strollers if it makes the number go up.
Yes, but in all fairness, remember Prohibition? That was actually implemented but didn't turn out so well in practice.Even the most optimistic folks agree that there will be deaths and injury due to automated driving. Are the costs associated with those deaths accounted for in the profits? How does one insure an automated vehicle?Buddy, this is the country that once debated outlawing cigarettes, and then opted not to because it would hurt the stock market and eliminate jobs. We'll happily accept the sacrifice of a few thousand bicyclists and babies in strollers if it makes the number go up.
It was arguably the last time the government banned an existing industry that was externalizing harms (aesbestos and lead paint/gasoline had easy alternatives). The bootleggers weren't as big a problem as the loss of tax revenue, and prohibition was repealed to pay for WW2. We've been trading lives for dollars and the political value of "more jobs" ever since.Yes, but in all fairness, remember Prohibition? That was actually implemented but didn't turn out so well in practice.Even the most optimistic folks agree that there will be deaths and injury due to automated driving. Are the costs associated with those deaths accounted for in the profits? How does one insure an automated vehicle?Buddy, this is the country that once debated outlawing cigarettes, and then opted not to because it would hurt the stock market and eliminate jobs. We'll happily accept the sacrifice of a few thousand bicyclists and babies in strollers if it makes the number go up.
It was arguably the last time the government banned an existing industry that was externalizing harms (aesbestos and lead paint/gasoline had easy alternatives). The bootleggers weren't as big a problem as the loss of tax revenue, and prohibition was repealed to pay for WW2. We've been trading lives for dollars and the political value of "more jobs" ever since.Yes, but in all fairness, remember Prohibition? That was actually implemented but didn't turn out so well in practice.Even the most optimistic folks agree that there will be deaths and injury due to automated driving. Are the costs associated with those deaths accounted for in the profits? How does one insure an automated vehicle?Buddy, this is the country that once debated outlawing cigarettes, and then opted not to because it would hurt the stock market and eliminate jobs. We'll happily accept the sacrifice of a few thousand bicyclists and babies in strollers if it makes the number go up.
It was arguably the last time the government banned an existing industry that was externalizing harms (aesbestos and lead paint/gasoline had easy alternatives). The bootleggers weren't as big a problem as the loss of tax revenue, and prohibition was repealed to pay for WW2. We've been trading lives for dollars and the political value of "more jobs" ever since.Yes, but in all fairness, remember Prohibition? That was actually implemented but didn't turn out so well in practice.Even the most optimistic folks agree that there will be deaths and injury due to automated driving. Are the costs associated with those deaths accounted for in the profits? How does one insure an automated vehicle?Buddy, this is the country that once debated outlawing cigarettes, and then opted not to because it would hurt the stock market and eliminate jobs. We'll happily accept the sacrifice of a few thousand bicyclists and babies in strollers if it makes the number go up.
This liability thing isn't even an issue with modern interpretations of consumer protections laws.
They'll make the passenger fully liable for all accidents and bury that in the terms & conditions that you have to accept to get a ride. The mandatory arbitration clause will protect the company from class action lawsuits.
It was arguably the last time the government banned an existing industry that was externalizing harms (aesbestos and lead paint/gasoline had easy alternatives). The bootleggers weren't as big a problem as the loss of tax revenue, and prohibition was repealed to pay for WW2. We've been trading lives for dollars and the political value of "more jobs" ever since.Yes, but in all fairness, remember Prohibition? That was actually implemented but didn't turn out so well in practice.Even the most optimistic folks agree that there will be deaths and injury due to automated driving. Are the costs associated with those deaths accounted for in the profits? How does one insure an automated vehicle?Buddy, this is the country that once debated outlawing cigarettes, and then opted not to because it would hurt the stock market and eliminate jobs. We'll happily accept the sacrifice of a few thousand bicyclists and babies in strollers if it makes the number go up.
This liability thing isn't even an issue with modern interpretations of consumer protections laws.
They'll make the passenger fully liable for all accidents and bury that in the terms & conditions that you have to accept to get a ride. The mandatory arbitration clause will protect the company from class action lawsuits.
Yeah but how long would that last? A few incidents and the company wouldn't get any fares.
"We can get an ArbitriCab, which might blame and then bankrupt us for its poor driving, or we can get a Waymo. What do you think?"
Even the most optimistic folks agree that there will be deaths and injury due to automated driving. Are the costs associated with those deaths accounted for in the profits? How does one insure an automated vehicle?
There are roughly 40,000 vehicular deaths a year in the US. This is a low bar for an AEV to clear. Of course we are not going to reduce deaths to zero, but if we can cut that number by 90% why wouldn't we do it? An AI driver will never drive distracted, tired, impaired or recklessly. An AI driver will never have road rage and cause an accident. What insurance company wouldn't insure an AEV if it was 90% less likely to be involved in a fatal accident compared to insuring a human driver? Cost of insuring will fall to the owner of the AEV, but cost of insuring each vehicle will be less than the cost of insuring a human driver and easily covered by revenue generated by a robotaxi.
Specifically, a Tesla operated with autopilot is 6X LESS likely to get in an accident compared to the US average.
https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
When death rates from driving fall in line with death rates from riding public transportation, flying on an airplane, or riding in a train, we will surrender control, just like we do in these other situations ,because we will deem the risk acceptable and better for society at large compared to the alternative of another 40,000 souls a year.
Those numbers from Tesla are kinda bullshit though, given the autopilot immediately cuts out nearly every time a vehicle is about to crash (hence why they say that the driver needs to monitor the vehicle constantly at all time that the 'self driving' is going on). That's a clearly fudged slight of hand, not a reasonable estimation of the effectiveness of driverless operation.
Given that, it seems rather optimistic to use those numbers to determine insurance costs.
Even the most optimistic folks agree that there will be deaths and injury due to automated driving. Are the costs associated with those deaths accounted for in the profits? How does one insure an automated vehicle?Buddy, this is the country that once debated outlawing cigarettes, and then opted not to because it would hurt the stock market and eliminate jobs. We'll happily accept the sacrifice of a few thousand bicyclists and babies in strollers if it makes the number go up.
What was the investment to R&D, build tooling, and produce the Cybertruck, and what is their current ROI?
What are the assumptions on Cybercab ROI?
The average cost of an Uber ride in the US is $2/mile. Let's assume a Cybercab undercuts this at $1.50/mile average. A Cybercab can operate 16 hours a day, leaving 8 hrs for recharging, maintenance and down time. Let's assume an average speed of 35 mph. So, 16hrs x 35 mph = 560 miles/day x 7days/week x 52 weeks = 203k miles/yr. Let's be super conservative and assume suboptimal utilization and each Cybercab does 100k billable miles per year. At $1.50/mile that's $150k in revenue per Cybercab per year. Fuel cost is roughly $0.15 per KwH. Cybercab gets 6 miles per KwH. So, annual fuel cost is $2,500 (assuming Tesla does provide their own energy via solar). Upkeep on a Cybercab is minimal. Cordless charging pads and robotic car cleaners take care of refueling and cleaning while charging. Maintenance cost is near zero. No scheduled maintenance in year one for a Tesla. Maybe some wiper fluid and one set of new tires. Let's put fueling, cleaning, registration fees and maintenance cost in year one at $5,000. Feel free to double that to $10k, it doesn't matter.
So, a Cybercab with a production cost of $15k rolls off the line and is accepting passengers the next day in Austin. In year 1 it generates $150k in revenue and costs $5k to operate, netting $145k for Tesla in year one. A nearly 10X ROI in the first year. The cab would pay for itself in under 2 months and produce enough profit in year 1 to build 6 additional Cybercabs.
Would like better sources, but claude.ai says that 30-40% of taxi miles driven are paid / with passengers and 60-70% are between fares. Some of those reasons wouldn't apply if there's no human, though many would:QuoteDriving to and from initial pickup locations
Circling or waiting for fares
Returning to taxi stands
Repositioning between potential high-demand areas
Personal or maintenance-related driving
Obviously "returning to charging port" would be on there. Human taxi drivers seem to drive 45-70k, though depending on charge cycles, as well as peak and off-peak hours, it's fine to estimate 100k total miles being driven by an autonomous electric taxi.
Now assuming 50% of those are paid, because the machines are just better at algorithms than the existing humans + dispatch + software, you're looking at 100k miles, 50k in fares. Estimates for economy taxi rides in Austin, Tx are already around $1.50 / mile, so perhaps they undercut it at $1.25 / mile? And the only cost is $0.15 / mile electric charging. So over 100k miles, that's $15,000 in fuel cost, and $62,500 in revenue. (And as mentioned above, $5-10k in "other maintenance", hand-wavy napkin math!) If all of that checks out, it's still close to $40k / year profit per vehicle if all the assumptions are correct.Here's a question though. Why are you questioning the economics of the Cybercab on an investor forum and asking others to do research that you could have done on your own before posting shade about the product?
Are the only people that can question if TSLA is a good investment, the people that are for investing? How about some contrary opinions so we can think about the things we haven't already? That goes both ways. If you're against it, why aren't you allowed to ask "why am I wrong, how could I be convinced this would be worth my investment dollars?"
I'm good with the above, while assuming some of your assumptions are on the low side and conceding my assumptions may be on the high side. Either way it is clear that Cybercab can be profitable in short order and undercut any competition. If Tesla bankrupts ride share services like Uber and Lyft and traditional taxi services, what does that do to utilization rates and billable miles per year per CC?
If the cost of using Tesla AEVs is so cheap as to undercut the cost of car ownership in urban and suburban locations what does that do to utilization rates and billable miles/year? If folks start forgoing car ownership and relying entirely on AEVs for ground transportation?
We need to be careful applying traditional metrics and assumptions to a disruptive technology. The ground is shifting under our feet.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the motivation behind your posts. You may very well be seeking objective understanding and contrarian opinions to debate and be open to an investment either way. Unfortunately, I have been on this thread since the beginning and some of the others who have been on for as long continue to move goal posts, dredge up the "concern of the day", refuse to concede when proven wrong, and whose single presence on this thread is to cheerlead against Tesla and amplify any FUD they happen across. Even though they've said time an again they would never own the stock.
You estimate that Tesla will be able to charge $1.5/mi to customers to ride.
I have two personal vehicles. One is my daily driver, which is an EV (non-Tesla, but comparable), the other is a ICE SUV. For the ICE vehicle, I've been tracking every expense and logging it in an app I've used for years. My current $/mi including all expenses and the capital cost to purchase the vehicle (used) is currently at $0.84/mi, and that's only after driving 43,000 miles over the past 3.5 years. My operating expenses to date have averaged out to $0.16/mi, so that $0.84/mi number will only go down the longer I keep it. If I'm able to keep it until I hit 100k miles, the average cost per mile will be $0.45/mi. At 200k if I can keep it that long? $0.31/mi. This is for a moderately efficient gas-powered SUV (26-30 mpg). Assumptions include no large deviations from maintenance costs and fuel costs. There are cheaper gas vehicles that I could have purchased to bring the captial costs down even further if I so desired.
For my EV. I purchased it back in October of last year, and I've put roughly 8k miles on it. Miles come mostly from my from commute but also 4-5 weekend road trips. It was not a cheap purchase at $45k, so that is working against me. I charge at home at $.13/kWh, that equates to $0.03/mi of fuel costs. Maintenance costs are hard for me to directly estimate, since I've paid $0 on maintenance to-date, but Google's search AI claims that the US DoE estimates a $0.07/mi average for maintenance of EVs. Going with that, then it's $0.10/mi for operating expenses. After 100k miles, this gives me a capital+operating expense average at $0.55/mi. If I can drive it until $200k, then that comes down to $0.33/mi. Roughly equivalent to my ICE vehicle (that cost half as much).
So doing some rough hand waving and (improperly) averaging both of those at 100k miles at $0.50/mi. My all-in expenses are 1/3 of the cost of using the Tesla's rideshare service using your $1.5/mi estimate. Why in the world would I ever make that switch? I'd be 3x'ing my transportation costs, plus eliminating my ability to drive long distance to visit family if I got rid of both vehicles. If I purchased even cheaper vehicles, then it would make even less sense.
Please explain how you see mass consumer adoption of robotaxi's without Tesla greatly reducing their margins. Otherwise, there's no financial incentive for people to switch fully over to rideshare, especially if a car you can own has the same self-driving capabilities as the robotaxi's.
Even the most optimistic folks agree that there will be deaths and injury due to automated driving. Are the costs associated with those deaths accounted for in the profits? How does one insure an automated vehicle?
You estimate that Tesla will be able to charge $1.5/mi to customers to ride.
I have two personal vehicles. One is my daily driver, which is an EV (non-Tesla, but comparable), the other is a ICE SUV. For the ICE vehicle, I've been tracking every expense and logging it in an app I've used for years. My current $/mi including all expenses and the capital cost to purchase the vehicle (used) is currently at $0.84/mi, and that's only after driving 43,000 miles over the past 3.5 years. My operating expenses to date have averaged out to $0.16/mi, so that $0.84/mi number will only go down the longer I keep it. If I'm able to keep it until I hit 100k miles, the average cost per mile will be $0.45/mi. At 200k if I can keep it that long? $0.31/mi. This is for a moderately efficient gas-powered SUV (26-30 mpg). Assumptions include no large deviations from maintenance costs and fuel costs. There are cheaper gas vehicles that I could have purchased to bring the captial costs down even further if I so desired.
For my EV. I purchased it back in October of last year, and I've put roughly 8k miles on it. Miles come mostly from my from commute but also 4-5 weekend road trips. It was not a cheap purchase at $45k, so that is working against me. I charge at home at $.13/kWh, that equates to $0.03/mi of fuel costs. Maintenance costs are hard for me to directly estimate, since I've paid $0 on maintenance to-date, but Google's search AI claims that the US DoE estimates a $0.07/mi average for maintenance of EVs. Going with that, then it's $0.10/mi for operating expenses. After 100k miles, this gives me a capital+operating expense average at $0.55/mi. If I can drive it until $200k, then that comes down to $0.33/mi. Roughly equivalent to my ICE vehicle (that cost half as much).
So doing some rough hand waving and (improperly) averaging both of those at 100k miles at $0.50/mi. My all-in expenses are 1/3 of the cost of using the Tesla's rideshare service using your $1.5/mi estimate. Why in the world would I ever make that switch? I'd be 3x'ing my transportation costs, plus eliminating my ability to drive long distance to visit family if I got rid of both vehicles. If I purchased even cheaper vehicles, then it would make even less sense.
Please explain how you see mass consumer adoption of robotaxi's without Tesla greatly reducing their margins. Otherwise, there's no financial incentive for people to switch fully over to rideshare, especially if a car you can own has the same self-driving capabilities as the robotaxi's.
I am not 100% sure your numbers are correct. I did not see any inclusion of car insurance for example. For the average person, a $45,000 EV is going to have a car insurance full coverage rate of $2,000 to $3,000 a year. If you drive 8000 miles a year gets you to $0.25 to $0.37 a mile just for insurance.
Also think about the opportunity cost of $45,000. In the first year, you are missing $2,000 in interest from a 4.5% CD or T-bill. That is another $0.25 a mile in opportunity cost. Now you are at $0.50/mile to $0.63 a mile and we have just covered insurance and opportunity cost.
Wait now we're going to assume the average consumer of transportation is going to do cost per mile analysis including opportunity cost? :)
Sorry, I disagree!
More realistically... people that use taxis and Taxi 2.0 (Uber / Lyft / Waymo) are... the same market that will use Taxi 3.0 (Waymo / Tesla / etc).
Convince me otherwise but Americans love their cars. Car purchase counts did decrease a little over COVID and with recent increasing "average" new car price (not to mention used car prices 2021-2022) but in general Americans love their cars and they want to "own" them (even if that means leasing them.)
The math has to be really stupidly good for them to give up their $600+ / month car payments and switch to taxis (if they haven't already because they are in the high density areas currently served by taxis.)
Ain't nobody drivin' 'round in a gubment tracked taxi with no god dang driver! Ya'll crazy.
You estimate that Tesla will be able to charge $1.5/mi to customers to ride.
I have two personal vehicles. One is my daily driver, which is an EV (non-Tesla, but comparable), the other is a ICE SUV. For the ICE vehicle, I've been tracking every expense and logging it in an app I've used for years. My current $/mi including all expenses and the capital cost to purchase the vehicle (used) is currently at $0.84/mi, and that's only after driving 43,000 miles over the past 3.5 years. My operating expenses to date have averaged out to $0.16/mi, so that $0.84/mi number will only go down the longer I keep it. If I'm able to keep it until I hit 100k miles, the average cost per mile will be $0.45/mi. At 200k if I can keep it that long? $0.31/mi. This is for a moderately efficient gas-powered SUV (26-30 mpg). Assumptions include no large deviations from maintenance costs and fuel costs. There are cheaper gas vehicles that I could have purchased to bring the captial costs down even further if I so desired.
For my EV. I purchased it back in October of last year, and I've put roughly 8k miles on it. Miles come mostly from my from commute but also 4-5 weekend road trips. It was not a cheap purchase at $45k, so that is working against me. I charge at home at $.13/kWh, that equates to $0.03/mi of fuel costs. Maintenance costs are hard for me to directly estimate, since I've paid $0 on maintenance to-date, but Google's search AI claims that the US DoE estimates a $0.07/mi average for maintenance of EVs. Going with that, then it's $0.10/mi for operating expenses. After 100k miles, this gives me a capital+operating expense average at $0.55/mi. If I can drive it until $200k, then that comes down to $0.33/mi. Roughly equivalent to my ICE vehicle (that cost half as much).
So doing some rough hand waving and (improperly) averaging both of those at 100k miles at $0.50/mi. My all-in expenses are 1/3 of the cost of using the Tesla's rideshare service using your $1.5/mi estimate. Why in the world would I ever make that switch? I'd be 3x'ing my transportation costs, plus eliminating my ability to drive long distance to visit family if I got rid of both vehicles. If I purchased even cheaper vehicles, then it would make even less sense.
Please explain how you see mass consumer adoption of robotaxi's without Tesla greatly reducing their margins. Otherwise, there's no financial incentive for people to switch fully over to rideshare, especially if a car you can own has the same self-driving capabilities as the robotaxi's.
I am not 100% sure your numbers are correct. I did not see any inclusion of car insurance for example. For the average person, a $45,000 EV is going to have a car insurance full coverage rate of $2,000 to $3,000 a year. If you drive 8000 miles a year gets you to $0.25 to $0.37 a mile just for insurance.
Also think about the opportunity cost of $45,000. In the first year, you are missing $2,000 in interest from a 4.5% CD or T-bill. That is another $0.25 a mile in opportunity cost. Now you are at $0.50/mile to $0.63 a mile and we have just covered insurance and opportunity cost.
Wait now we're going to assume the average consumer of transportation is going to do cost per mile analysis including opportunity cost? :)
Sorry, I disagree!
More realistically... people that use taxis and Taxi 2.0 (Uber / Lyft / Waymo) are... the same market that will use Taxi 3.0 (Waymo / Tesla / etc).
Convince me otherwise but Americans love their cars. Car purchase counts did decrease a little over COVID and with recent increasing "average" new car price (not to mention used car prices 2021-2022) but in general Americans love their cars and they want to "own" them (even if that means leasing them.)
The math has to be really stupidly good for them to give up their $600+ / month car payments and switch to taxis (if they haven't already because they are in the high density areas currently served by taxis.)
Rates of car ownership are already going down with younger generations before the option of an AEV is available. Gas on a fire. Car ownership today is not the same "joy of the open road" experience older generations associate with car ownership. Nor is it the status symbol with the younger crowd that it is with older generations.
The number of registered vehicles in the United States increased by 3.5% between 2018 and 2022, from 269,417,884 registered vehicles to 278,870,463 registered vehicles, indicating an upward trend in car ownership.
Car ownership in America is on the rise. Only 8.3% of households did not have a vehicle in 2022, a 4.6% decrease from 2018, when 8.7% of households did not have a vehicle.
Rising car ownership: 91.7% of U.S. households had at least one vehicle in 2022, up from 90.9% in 2015.
In 2022, sales of new light vehicles dropped to 13.9 million units, down from 14.6 million units in 2021.
Sales rebounded in 2023, with 15.5 million light vehicles sold in the U.S., including 3.12 million passenger cars and 12.4 million light trucks.
Based on the latest United States Census data, 92 percent of American households own at least one car.
We find that although a simple comparison of average ownership and use would suggest a difference, once one controls for confounding variables there is no evidence of a difference. While we find that Millennials are altering life-choices that affect vehicle ownership, the net effect of these endogenous choices is to reduce vehicle ownership by less than one percent. We can statistically rule out effects larger than two percent.
While it is difficult to predict with certainty how car sales will be impacted by Gen Z’s lack of interest in cars and driving, a deeper dive into Gen Z’s current lifestyle choices and feelings towards driving shows their ambivalence towards cars may be short-lived. For example, as Gen Z grows up, moves away from city centers and college campuses, and has children, their need for day-to-day private transportation will likely increase. Additionally, while ride-sharing services are popular for this age group, they may not be as cost-effective in the long term as owning a car, especially for individuals who travel frequently and need to commute long distances. Moreover, as electric and hybrid vehicles become more affordable and accessible, they may become an appealing option to the environmentally conscious Gen Z. Further, developments in autonomous driving technology and enhanced safety features may alleviate some of the anxiety associated with driving that Gen Z currently reports.
A trip back to when Millennials began reaching driving age is instructive. A decade ago it appears that Millennials were similarly disinterested in owning a car in comparison to earlier generations, like the boomers. For example, the number of young Americans driving in 2014 significantly declined from earlier generations and the prevalent narrative was that Millennials rejected cars. However, as Millennials grew up, it turned out that their attitudes toward car culture were not so different from the boomer generation. It was not but a few years later, as Millennials aged, began to establish their careers, and were able to finally afford cars with their raising incomes that a larger percentage began purchasing cars just like their parents had
You estimate that Tesla will be able to charge $1.5/mi to customers to ride.
I have two personal vehicles. One is my daily driver, which is an EV (non-Tesla, but comparable), the other is a ICE SUV. For the ICE vehicle, I've been tracking every expense and logging it in an app I've used for years. My current $/mi including all expenses and the capital cost to purchase the vehicle (used) is currently at $0.84/mi, and that's only after driving 43,000 miles over the past 3.5 years. My operating expenses to date have averaged out to $0.16/mi, so that $0.84/mi number will only go down the longer I keep it. If I'm able to keep it until I hit 100k miles, the average cost per mile will be $0.45/mi. At 200k if I can keep it that long? $0.31/mi. This is for a moderately efficient gas-powered SUV (26-30 mpg). Assumptions include no large deviations from maintenance costs and fuel costs. There are cheaper gas vehicles that I could have purchased to bring the captial costs down even further if I so desired.
For my EV. I purchased it back in October of last year, and I've put roughly 8k miles on it. Miles come mostly from my from commute but also 4-5 weekend road trips. It was not a cheap purchase at $45k, so that is working against me. I charge at home at $.13/kWh, that equates to $0.03/mi of fuel costs. Maintenance costs are hard for me to directly estimate, since I've paid $0 on maintenance to-date, but Google's search AI claims that the US DoE estimates a $0.07/mi average for maintenance of EVs. Going with that, then it's $0.10/mi for operating expenses. After 100k miles, this gives me a capital+operating expense average at $0.55/mi. If I can drive it until $200k, then that comes down to $0.33/mi. Roughly equivalent to my ICE vehicle (that cost half as much).
So doing some rough hand waving and (improperly) averaging both of those at 100k miles at $0.50/mi. My all-in expenses are 1/3 of the cost of using the Tesla's rideshare service using your $1.5/mi estimate. Why in the world would I ever make that switch? I'd be 3x'ing my transportation costs, plus eliminating my ability to drive long distance to visit family if I got rid of both vehicles. If I purchased even cheaper vehicles, then it would make even less sense.
Please explain how you see mass consumer adoption of robotaxi's without Tesla greatly reducing their margins. Otherwise, there's no financial incentive for people to switch fully over to rideshare, especially if a car you can own has the same self-driving capabilities as the robotaxi's.
I am not 100% sure your numbers are correct. I did not see any inclusion of car insurance for example. For the average person, a $45,000 EV is going to have a car insurance full coverage rate of $2,000 to $3,000 a year. If you drive 8000 miles a year gets you to $0.25 to $0.37 a mile just for insurance.
Also think about the opportunity cost of $45,000. In the first year, you are missing $2,000 in interest from a 4.5% CD or T-bill. That is another $0.25 a mile in opportunity cost. Now you are at $0.50/mile to $0.63 a mile and we have just covered insurance and opportunity cost.
I also don't see vehicle depreciation. You are also extrapolating maintenance costs for the life of the vehicle using only routine maintenance to date. These costs are lumpy and unexpected. A broken windshield, the fender bender that's not worth an insurance claim, transmission flush, new muffler, timing belt, etc. Do you wash your car? Even at home that costs something. Ever drive a toll road? Is the car financed? Most people will have interest in addition to the opportunity cost of investing the money spent on the car's purchase price.
In big cities there is the cost of even storing/parking your car.
How much value do we put on our time. Time not spent shopping insurance, washing and vacuuming the car, oil changes, registration, emissions testing, vehicle inspections, etc.
No one can steal, break into or vandalize something you don't own. Ride hailing an AEV instead of owning a car clears up a lot of physical space and mental space, which is a tremendous value in my opinion.
My guess, a lot of folks will opt out of car ownership when a proven, reliable AEV service is available and costs around $1.00/mile. Tesla could operate a profitable Cybercab for that amount based on the economics laid out above.
Rates of car ownership are already going down with younger generations before the option of an AEV is available. Gas on a fire. Car ownership today is not the same "joy of the open road" experience older generations associate with car ownership. Nor is it the status symbol with the younger crowd that it is with older generations.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-statistics/QuoteThe number of registered vehicles in the United States increased by 3.5% between 2018 and 2022, from 269,417,884 registered vehicles to 278,870,463 registered vehicles, indicating an upward trend in car ownership.QuoteCar ownership in America is on the rise. Only 8.3% of households did not have a vehicle in 2022, a 4.6% decrease from 2018, when 8.7% of households did not have a vehicle.
https://www.fool.com/money/research/car-ownership-statistics/QuoteRising car ownership: 91.7% of U.S. households had at least one vehicle in 2022, up from 90.9% in 2015.
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/car-ownership-statistics.htmlQuoteIn 2022, sales of new light vehicles dropped to 13.9 million units, down from 14.6 million units in 2021.
Sales rebounded in 2023, with 15.5 million light vehicles sold in the U.S., including 3.12 million passenger cars and 12.4 million light trucks.
https://www.autoinsurance.com/research/car-ownership-statistics/QuoteBased on the latest United States Census data, 92 percent of American households own at least one car.
I'm not seeing enough evidence to agree with your premise here.
GENERATIONAL TRENDS IN VEHICLE OWNERSHIP AND USE: ARE MILLENNIALS ANY DIFFERENT? (https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25674/w25674.pdf) (PDF, 2019)QuoteWe find that although a simple comparison of average ownership and use would suggest a difference, once one controls for confounding variables there is no evidence of a difference. While we find that Millennials are altering life-choices that affect vehicle ownership, the net effect of these endogenous choices is to reduce vehicle ownership by less than one percent. We can statistically rule out effects larger than two percent.
Closest I can get to support... https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2023/05/data-deep-dive-gen-z-less-interested-owning-car/QuoteWhile it is difficult to predict with certainty how car sales will be impacted by Gen Z’s lack of interest in cars and driving, a deeper dive into Gen Z’s current lifestyle choices and feelings towards driving shows their ambivalence towards cars may be short-lived. For example, as Gen Z grows up, moves away from city centers and college campuses, and has children, their need for day-to-day private transportation will likely increase. Additionally, while ride-sharing services are popular for this age group, they may not be as cost-effective in the long term as owning a car, especially for individuals who travel frequently and need to commute long distances. Moreover, as electric and hybrid vehicles become more affordable and accessible, they may become an appealing option to the environmentally conscious Gen Z. Further, developments in autonomous driving technology and enhanced safety features may alleviate some of the anxiety associated with driving that Gen Z currently reports.QuoteA trip back to when Millennials began reaching driving age is instructive. A decade ago it appears that Millennials were similarly disinterested in owning a car in comparison to earlier generations, like the boomers. For example, the number of young Americans driving in 2014 significantly declined from earlier generations and the prevalent narrative was that Millennials rejected cars. However, as Millennials grew up, it turned out that their attitudes toward car culture were not so different from the boomer generation. It was not but a few years later, as Millennials aged, began to establish their careers, and were able to finally afford cars with their raising incomes that a larger percentage began purchasing cars just like their parents had
snip
My takeaway from your post. Car ownership is expensive and millennials delayed car ownership or were trying to avoid it until life mandated the needed one. Either way, what if the next generation uses an AEV service while waiting to afford their own car and realizes they're getting along just fine without their own car and saving a lot of money in the process?
Again, this is the nature of disruption. People struggle to see another reality than the one they grew up, b ut if the next generation grows up with on demand ride hailing from an AEV this will be the only reality the know and they will view car ownership as wasteful and antiquated.
My takeaway from your post. Car ownership is expensive and millennials delayed car ownership or were trying to avoid it until life mandated the needed one. Either way, what if the next generation uses an AEV service while waiting to afford their own car and realizes they're getting along just fine without their own car and saving a lot of money in the process?
Again, this is the nature of disruption. People struggle to see another reality than the one they grew up, b ut if the next generation grows up with on demand ride hailing from an AEV this will be the only reality the know and they will view car ownership as wasteful and antiquated.
More realistically... people that use taxis and Taxi 2.0 (Uber / Lyft / Waymo) are... the same market that will use Taxi 3.0 (Waymo / Tesla / etc).
I also don't see vehicle depreciation. You are also extrapolating maintenance costs for the life of the vehicle using only routine maintenance to date. These costs are lumpy and unexpected. A broken windshield, the fender bender that's not worth an insurance claim, transmission flush, new muffler, timing belt, etc. Do you wash your car? Even at home that costs something. Ever drive a toll road? Is the car financed? Most people will have interest in addition to the opportunity cost of investing the money spent on the car's purchase price.
In big cities there is the cost of even storing/parking your car.
How much value do we put on our time. Time not spent shopping insurance, washing and vacuuming the car, oil changes, registration, emissions testing, vehicle inspections, etc.
No one can steal, break into or vandalize something you don't own. Ride hailing an AEV instead of owning a car clears up a lot of physical space and mental space, which is a tremendous value in my opinion.
My guess, a lot of folks will opt out of car ownership when a proven, reliable AEV service is available and costs around $1.00/mile. Tesla could operate a profitable Cybercab for that amount based on the economics laid out above.
Even the most optimistic folks agree that there will be deaths and injury due to automated driving. Are the costs associated with those deaths accounted for in the profits? How does one insure an automated vehicle?
I don't think this is really an issue. There are deaths and injuries due to transporting people in general. Airlines, bus companies, and taxis already kill people, so I don't see how eliminating a driver (or pilot) presents any particular new type of legal challenge.
More realistically... people that use taxis and Taxi 2.0 (Uber / Lyft / Waymo) are... the same market that will use Taxi 3.0 (Waymo / Tesla / etc).
Totally agree, with the slight caveat that if Taxi 3.0 was cheaper and more convenient than Taxi 2.0 then it makes sense more people would use it.
I also don't see vehicle depreciation. You are also extrapolating maintenance costs for the life of the vehicle using only routine maintenance to date. These costs are lumpy and unexpected. A broken windshield, the fender bender that's not worth an insurance claim, transmission flush, new muffler, timing belt, etc. Do you wash your car? Even at home that costs something. Ever drive a toll road? Is the car financed? Most people will have interest in addition to the opportunity cost of investing the money spent on the car's purchase price.
In big cities there is the cost of even storing/parking your car.
How much value do we put on our time. Time not spent shopping insurance, washing and vacuuming the car, oil changes, registration, emissions testing, vehicle inspections, etc.
No one can steal, break into or vandalize something you don't own. Ride hailing an AEV instead of owning a car clears up a lot of physical space and mental space, which is a tremendous value in my opinion.
My guess, a lot of folks will opt out of car ownership when a proven, reliable AEV service is available and costs around $1.00/mile. Tesla could operate a profitable Cybercab for that amount based on the economics laid out above.
The problem is that all those same costs exist for the rideshare company too. Only you do the light maintenance work for free, but the rideshare company needs to pay somebody. You park in your driveway for free, but the rideshare company needs to lease a parking lot, and so on. And on top of that the rideshare company needs to make a profit.
I easily can see an autonomous rideshare company being cheaper than one with human drivers, but I don't see how it works out to be meaningfully cheaper than owning the equivalent vehicle.
I think disruption is a bit hand-wavy.
Especially when you remember that the U.S. is huge and very spread out, with lots of the population living in low density areas.
Really, I don't know. Average new car price in the US is approaching $40k. Average that out over 10 years of ownership. That's $4k/yr. Then add the opportunity cost of buying a depreciating asset versus investing $40k. Then add annual tax, title, registration, insurance, maintenance, and fuel costs. Owning a car costs around 8-10k/yr. As shown above, a Cybercab can profitably be operated for $1/mile.
How many Americans drive less than 8-10K miles/yr?
BTW, Musk is quoted as saying the cost to operate a CC is 20 cents/mile. Even if you double that to 40 cents, it would mean the cost of car ownership would be more expensive than using AEVs for transport unless you were driving over 20,000 miles a year (or lived in a very rural area, which is a small minority of the pop). Owning your own vehicle could become a luxury only justifiable to the wealthy in suburban and urban markets.
This ignores things like driving to Home Depot, loading it with plywood, and driving home. Does the hypothetical future "van-sized" Cybercab also cost $1/mile? Or do I have to hail a Cybercab, take a ride to a Budget Rental, and rent a van? Oops. In my use cases, I opt to own a car because it is cheaper, more convenient.
This ignores things like driving to Home Depot, loading it with plywood, and driving home. Does the hypothetical future "van-sized" Cybercab also cost $1/mile? Or do I have to hail a Cybercab, take a ride to a Budget Rental, and rent a van? Oops. In my use cases, I opt to own a car because it is cheaper, more convenient.
FWIW, I finished my whole basement by cycling down to Home Depot, buying lumber, renting a van from HD, driving it home and unloading, then dropping off the van and riding my bike back home. Van rentals ranged from like 20$ for 90 minutes to 100$ for the whole day.
I easily can see an autonomous rideshare company being cheaper than one with human drivers, but I don't see how it works out to be meaningfully cheaper than owning the equivalent vehicle.
Really, I don't know. Average new car price in the US is approaching $40k. Average that out over 10 years of ownership. That's $4k/yr. Then add the opportunity cost of buying a depreciating asset versus investing $40k. Then add annual tax, title, registration, insurance, maintenance, and fuel costs. Owning a car costs around 8-10k/yr. As shown above, a Cybercab can profitably be operated for $1/mile.
How many Americans drive less than 8-10K miles/yr?
BTW, Musk is quoted as saying the cost to operate a CC is 20 cents/mile. Even if you double that to 40 cents, it would mean the cost of car ownership would be more expensive than using AEVs for transport unless you were driving over 20,000 miles a year (or lived in a very rural area, which is a small minority of the pop). Owning your own vehicle could become a luxury only justifiable to the wealthy in suburban and urban markets.
(or lived in a very rural area, which is a small minority of the pop).
Relevant summary from Patrick Boyle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT7x31Jm9go (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT7x31Jm9go)
Relevant summary from Patrick Boyle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT7x31Jm9go (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT7x31Jm9go)
This board did a better job dissecting and analyzing Tesla's business prospects in the last couple pages than this guy does in a 20 minute video. Clear he has no actual expertise in this area. Virtually zero analysis. Just a bunch of general opinion and sentiment with the tired claim that Tesla investors are a cult and it's all hype yada, yada. Same claim that was made when Tesla sold 2,000/cars a year and as when Tesl sold nearly 2 million/year. Collapse is imminent, no really this time.
Relevant summary from Patrick Boyle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT7x31Jm9go (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT7x31Jm9go)
Q1's delivery numbers came in 13% below the same period last year...
Sales reports and estimates from markets around the world throughout the start of 2025 have shown that demand is way down.
The figure lagged behind that of China’s BYD, which has regained its crown as the world’s best-selling electric-vehicle maker after this week reporting sales of 416,388 EVs in the same period.
The company is banking on a revival in demand after finally launching the redesigned Model Y in China in February and Europe last month.
But the upgrade has not yet lifted sales, with new registrations falling sharply in France, Sweden and other European markets.
I really just don't get what drives Tesla's insane evaluation at this point. The PE is insane, and the competition is and will continue catching up or even being better.
I really just don't get what drives Tesla's insane evaluation at this point. The PE is insane, and the competition is and will continue catching up or even being better.
I really just don't get what drives Tesla's insane evaluation at this point. The PE is insane, and the competition is and will continue catching up or even being better.
“In our view, Tesla’s softer auto deliveries are emblematic of a company in the transition from an automotive ‘pure play’ to a highly diversified play on AI and robotics,” Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas wrote on March 20.
I really just don't get what drives Tesla's insane evaluation at this point. The PE is insane, and the competition is and will continue catching up or even being better.
It could also be the tariffs will make Tesla more competitive since their parts and assembly are made more in the US than any other car. Tesla is up 5% today on the news... I am tempted to buy more puts.
That almost makes it seem like reduced deliveries is on purpose.
I really just don't get what drives Tesla's insane evaluation at this point. The PE is insane, and the competition is and will continue catching up or even being better.
It could also be the tariffs will make Tesla more competitive since their parts and assembly are made more in the US than any other car. Tesla is up 5% today on the news... I am tempted to buy more puts.
There's something about Tesla that has allowed investors to jump from one growth narrative to another, even as the previous narratives have successively collapsed. Back in the dot-com bubble, Pets.com and the like had one narrative and they collapsed within 1-4 years when the narrative didn't play out. Yet the way we treat Tesla now would be like if the CEO of Pets.com announced they would go into the business of selling AI pets, and we all threw more billions into their next round of equity/stock offering, and then announced they'll start accepting bitcoin for AI pets and we threw in billions more. Certainly the example doesn't hold now the TSLA started operating at some minor scale and generating profits, but it does apply to the question of how a car manufacturer with falling sales and major brand damage sports a PE of 128 instead of 12.8?I really just don't get what drives Tesla's insane evaluation at this point. The PE is insane, and the competition is and will continue catching up or even being better.“In our view, Tesla’s softer auto deliveries are emblematic of a company in the transition from an automotive ‘pure play’ to a highly diversified play on AI and robotics,” Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas wrote on March 20.
Maybe it’s money laundering and influence purchasing.
There's something about Tesla that has allowed investors to jump from one growth narrative to another, even as the previous narratives have successively collapsed. Back in the dot-com bubble, Pets.com and the like had one narrative and they collapsed within 1-4 years when the narrative didn't play out. Yet the way we treat Tesla now would be like if the CEO of Pets.com announced they would go into the business of selling AI pets, and we all threw more billions into their next round of equity/stock offering, and then announced they'll start accepting bitcoin for AI pets and we threw in billions more. Certainly the example doesn't hold now the TSLA started operating at some minor scale and generating profits, but it does apply to the question of how a car manufacturer with falling sales and major brand damage sports a PE of 128 instead of 12.8?I really just don't get what drives Tesla's insane evaluation at this point. The PE is insane, and the competition is and will continue catching up or even being better.“In our view, Tesla’s softer auto deliveries are emblematic of a company in the transition from an automotive ‘pure play’ to a highly diversified play on AI and robotics,” Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas wrote on March 20.
Tesla went from being a car company (success!... but where's the Model 2?) to being a solar company (just forget that ever happened) to being a FSD company (still waiting for the product to work...) to being a truck company (a non-serious product was introduced) to being an AI robot company (with demo robots that were shown to be remote controlled by humans) to now being a FSD taxi company (back to still waiting...).
If this is a bubble, it seems to have gone on for longer than any other bubble. Housing 1.0, dot com, roaring 20's, South Sea, tulips... all were done within a few years; yet TSLA has been insanely priced for - what? - a decade now? And throughout that time, Tesla has still not produced as much free cash flow as has been invested in the company.
This suggests there's something bigger going on than a mere bubble. Some might say it's the meme stock phenomenon. Others might say it's the Cult of Elon (formerly comprised of environmentalists, now comprised of MAGA bros?). But even these factors seem too small to prop up an anti-growth company this way for this long.
I'm looking for more systemic explanations. Maybe saturated markets, high asset prices, and maxxed out consumers create a world where the possibility of breaking open new markets or disrupting old markets is the only thing perceived to have value? Maybe tax policy distortions and industrial subsidies are pushing money into less-productive directions? Maybe more liquid markets for options, swaps, or collateralized lending are propping up asset prices by making assets more useful or less risky than in the past. Maybe there's simply a worldwide savings glut propping up everything - an "everything bubble" caused by wealth inequality reaching critical mass? Maybe microplastic pollution and the internet have made us all gullible? Or maybe Tesla has real advantages that justify the extreme price, despite all the negatives.
All I'm saying is, we need to be past the point of considering little factors.
All I'm saying is, we need to be past the point of considering little factors.
All I'm saying is, we need to be past the point of considering little factors.
I think the simplest explanation is best: Tesla devotees really believe in Tesla and are willing to pay a premium for the stock.
All I'm saying is, we need to be past the point of considering little factors.
I think the simplest explanation is best: Tesla devotees really believe in Tesla and are willing to pay a premium for the stock.
I don't think that explanation works at all, considering that Tesla is 1.65% of the S&P, 2.8% of the Nasdaq, and almost 2/3 of the shares are held by institutions.
Isn't this an extension of the meme stock phenomenon? I.e. people on Reddit theorizing about how Gamestop will use crypto to trade video game IP sound a lot like Cathie Wood. It's just unrestrained, but focused, hyper-optimism. I suppose that's what worked for the 100-bagger tech companies of the past, and so now people are aping the attitude that led those investors to lotto tickets."ARK Invest CEO Cathie Wood maintains her ambitious $2,600 price target for Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) by 2029—valuing the company at over $9 trillion—despite the stock’s near 41% decline since the beginning of the year.I don't think that explanation works at all, considering that Tesla is 1.65% of the S&P, 2.8% of the Nasdaq, and almost 2/3 of the shares are held by institutions.All I'm saying is, we need to be past the point of considering little factors.I think the simplest explanation is best: Tesla devotees really believe in Tesla and are willing to pay a premium for the stock.
'It’s winner take most,' Wood said of Tesla’s position in the autonomous vehicle race during Bloomberg’s 'Odd Lots' podcast. 'And we do believe that Tesla will be and is in the pole position here in the United States.'
Wood sees robotaxis as an $8 trillion to $10 trillion opportunity that could transform Tesla from an auto manufacturer to a software company. She predicts autonomous vehicles will boost Tesla’s gross margins from the current 16% to up to 90%, according to Fortune."
Institutional investors can be true believers, too.
I don't think that explanation works at all, considering that Tesla is 1.65% of the S&P, 2.8% of the Nasdaq, and almost 2/3 of the shares are held by institutions.
Ives’ biggest concern is the potential for Tesla to get caught up in backlash against the US president’s tariff policies in China, where Tesla generated more than a fifth of its revenue last year. President Xi Jinping’s government plans to impose a 34% tariff on all imports from the US starting April 10, matching the level of Trump’s so-called reciprocal tariffs on Chinese products.
“This will further drive Chinese consumers to buy domestic such as BYD, Nio, Xpeng and others,” Ives said in his note issued Sunday. “We now estimate Tesla has lost/destroyed at least 10% of its future customer base globally based on self-created brand issues, and this could be a conservative estimate.”
I toyed with the idea of buying a little TSLA when it dipped below $250, but decided I didn't care enough. After today's insane run-up, I missed out, but still don't care.It's not logical behavior, but it does seem to match what I see in reality. Tesla fanboys always like both the stock and the product. A friend who is always texting me X links about Musk saying something pseudo-profound and semi-misleading thinks the Cybertruck is badass. He can't afford one, but you can bet he's in the stock, hoping it rises 1,000% so he can afford one. Musk's deal seems to be "if you believe in me, I'll give you a luxury car".
I did think it was a bearish sign that at my work, where there are 20+ Teslas, not a single one is one of the refreshed 3s or Ys. And was musing over that exact thought again today as I pulled into the lot, only to see that the owner now has a brand new Y, paper plates and all. Kind of disappointed, as he was a big Elon fan (constantly using him as an example) but had supposedly soured on him since the election. But I "think" he made a good chunk (maybe most?) of his money off of TSLA and SpaceX, so I figure maybe the story for him is an attempt to do what he can to prop up the price of whatever shares he still has, and maybe that story has been and is being repeated all over among those that Tesla enriched, and partially explains why Tesla has so far avoided a catastrophic crash?
I bet many Tesla fanboys have observed similar stories, which they hope to repeat through the magic of stock concentration and ignoring fundamentals.
10 years ago (when iPhone 6 was released) AAPL had a PE ratio of like 10We may see that opportunity again.
So, what made Apple's stock price go insane and create a crazy high PE?
Republicans want $2,500 iPhones? wild
Republicans want $2,500 iPhones? wildI like it.
Republicans want $2,500 iPhones? wild
Judged solely on sales, Musk’s Cybertruck is actually doing a lot worse than Edsel, a name that’s become synonymous with a disastrous product misfire. Ford hoped to sell 200,000 Edsels a year when it hit the market in 1958, but managed just 63,000. Sales plunged in 1959 and the brand was dumped in 1960. Musk predicted that Cybertruck might see 250,000 annual sales. Tesla sold just under 40,000 in 2024, its first full year. There’s no sign that volume is rising this year, with sales trending lower in January and February, according to Cox Automotive.
...In anticipation of high sales, Tesla even modified its Austin Gigafactory so it could produce up to 250,000 Cybertrucks a year, capacity investments that aren’t likely to be recouped.
Musk and Tesla not only made promises to those who bought the FSD package, but they promised anyone buying Tesla vehicles since 2016 had “all the hardware necessary for full self-driving capability.”
As we previously reported, Tesla removed the claim from its website last year and changed the language around the FSD package, which was likely aimed at weakening claims for Tesla HW4 owners, but the case for HW3 owners is more straightforward.
In 2019, Musk claimed “Tesla vehicles are now appreciating assets” because of their future self-driving capabilities. Of course, this proved to be completely wrong.
In 2024, we started to report that Tesla was reaching the limits of the HW3 computer, while the capabilities were nowhere near the promised unsupervised robotaxi-level autonomous driving.
It took another 6 months, but in January 2025, Musk finally admitted that HW3 computers are not powerful enough to achieve unsupervised self-driving capability.
Truly, the man is a genius.
Unsold stockpiles of Tesla Cybertrucks have reached all-time highs, with nearly $200 million in idle vehicles sitting on lots. To keep that number from creeping ever higher, Tesla is refusing trade-in requests from current Cybertruck owners.
In the meantime, Tesla finds itself holding more Cybertruck inventory than ever, with almost 2,400 Cybertrucks in new inventory available (via Tesla-Info)
Tesla won’t take your Cybertruck trade-in as lots fill with unsold EVs (https://www.motorbiscuit.com/tesla-wont-take-cybertruck-trade-in/) (motorbiscuit.com)QuoteUnsold stockpiles of Tesla Cybertrucks have reached all-time highs, with nearly $200 million in idle vehicles sitting on lots. To keep that number from creeping ever higher, Tesla is refusing trade-in requests from current Cybertruck owners.
Tesla is sitting on $200 million worth of Cybertruck inventory (https://electrek.co/2025/04/01/tesla-is-sitting-on-200-million-worth-of-cybertruck-inventory/) (electrek.co)QuoteIn the meantime, Tesla finds itself holding more Cybertruck inventory than ever, with almost 2,400 Cybertrucks in new inventory available (via Tesla-Info)
I didn't "math" the $200m at first, but realizing it's only 2400 Cybertrucks, that doesn't seem so bad. They seem to be selling roughly that many each month, so it's something like a 30 day supply. Many manufacturers have much larger inventories (though often held by dealerships).
Tesla's product stands out among the Jeeps and pretty trucks as being the only one without a huge belching gasoline or diesel engine...
LONG RANGE 3-ROW EV SUV
FROM: $130,405
Kinda an odd observation: The majority of Cybertrucks I've seen on the road have been "wrapped" to make them a different color or pattern than the bare stainless steel, which was formerly considered a feature.
Shimmering multicolor "look at me!" wraps are popular, as is fake blue camouflage, as used when militaries must operate in fields of bluebells after a recent snow. The goal for the CT buyer appears to be to get as much attention and "looks" as possible. Thus, Cybertrucks are in competition with Jeeps and pretty trucks for the market of people willing to spend six figures to buy a very expensive and impractical vehicle with tens of thousands of dollars of "customization" work done to express their "individuality" in the most consumeristic way possible.
To be clear for anyone who isn't caught up, the product is not transportation. It's status within a subculture with a similar mindset.
Tesla's product stands out among the Jeeps and pretty trucks as being the only one without a huge belching gasoline or diesel engine and the only one that is, judging from the Youtube videos, helpless off-road and impractical for towing. Acceptance has been low as the Tesla product deviates from the norms and values of Jeep/Truck culture aficionados. Thus, cybertruck owners seem to be culturally "lone wolves" for now, who see value in showing off how different they are and how hated they are by others.
That could change as they create their own subculture of impracticality and financial incineration, with CT-only meetups to show off their purchases and customizations while saluting Elon Musk. Thus, as bad a vehicle as the CT is, it still might develop a cult (literal cult) following. If tariffs shut down production of many Jeeps and pretty trucks, Elon's plastic dumpster might become a thing among those with more money to burn than good sense. With pretty trucks and Jeeps almost everywhere, the CT fills a void in the overpaid-narcissistic-douchebag market simply for being less common than the others.
The real question is how long this demographic can continue affording to buy vehicles that cost as much as a manufactured home. The same tariffs that could force demand into CTs could also force these bad-at-money / eager-for-approval individuals out of their jobs as cellphone salesmen, day traders, and assistants in their dad's business.
Tesla's product stands out among the Jeeps and pretty trucks as being the only one without a huge belching gasoline or diesel engine...
First-Ever 2026 ESCALADE IQL (https://www.cadillac.com/electric/escalade-iql)QuoteLONG RANGE 3-ROW EV SUV
FROM: $130,405
*ahem*
First-Ever 2026 ESCALADE IQL (https://www.cadillac.com/electric/escalade-iql)I felt nothing but *desire*. I need absolution.
IDK, how big exactly is the overlap between people who are conscientious enough to want to save the planet, but not conscientious enough not to incinerate $130k on a friggin luxury motor couch? The CT bros would definitely be buying Jeep Gladiators if it was not for the CT, but who exactly is this aimed at? The same bros at the age of 60?Tesla's product stands out among the Jeeps and pretty trucks as being the only one without a huge belching gasoline or diesel engine...
First-Ever 2026 ESCALADE IQL (https://www.cadillac.com/electric/escalade-iql)QuoteLONG RANGE 3-ROW EV SUV
FROM: $130,405
*ahem*
I know I'll be in the minority here, but when I learned about this a few weeks ago, I felt nothing but *desire*. I need absolution.
with CT-only meetups to show off their purchases and customizations while saluting Elon Musk.
IDK, how big exactly is the overlap between people who are conscientious enough to want to save the planet, but not conscientious enough not to incinerate $130k on a friggin luxury motor couch? The CT bros would definitely be buying Jeep Gladiators if it was not for the CT, but who exactly is this aimed at? The same bros at the age of 60?Tesla's product stands out among the Jeeps and pretty trucks as being the only one without a huge belching gasoline or diesel engine...
First-Ever 2026 ESCALADE IQL (https://www.cadillac.com/electric/escalade-iql)QuoteLONG RANGE 3-ROW EV SUV
FROM: $130,405
*ahem*
I know I'll be in the minority here, but when I learned about this a few weeks ago, I felt nothing but *desire*. I need absolution.
Tesla sold 42,322 vehicles in California during the first three months of the year, the bulk of which were Model Y SUVs and Model 3 sedans. The two vehicles remained the top-selling EVs in the state, followed by the Honda Prologue and Hyundai Ioniq 5 SUVs.
California is by far the largest EV market in the US, accounting for 31.1% of registrations last year, according to the dealers’ association.
10 years ago (when iPhone 6 was released) AAPL had a PE ratio of like 10
Did we just evolve to have these crazy high margin software heavy business models? Is this what lead to insanely high PEs?
Lucid Gravity
Tesla Slumps Below 50% Share of California's Electric Car Market
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-16/tesla-slumps-below-50-share-of-california-s-electric-car-market?leadSource=reddit_wall (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-16/tesla-slumps-below-50-share-of-california-s-electric-car-market?leadSource=reddit_wall)
You read it here months/years ago.
Ah, so part if it is how scalable a lot of those businesses are. I was thinking about that.Did we just evolve to have these crazy high margin software heavy business models? Is this what lead to insanely high PEs?
Newer companies without those margins exist, too. So, I would answer: yes. It's not simply a symptom of the market. It is about their business model. And not just margins, but the speed with which they can grow without having to commit significant infrastructure across every geography they reach. Contrast that to a restaurant chain, for example. They can also grow quickly as they expand nationwide, but they require significant capital to do so. (And, witness the franchise model, which is a way to turn the restaurant business into an idea / ip business, although not fully)
Plans for new vehicles, including more affordable models, remain on track for start of production in the first half of 2025.
Our purpose-built Robotaxi product – Cybercab – will continue to pursue a revolutionary “unboxed” manufacturing strategy and is
scheduled for volume production starting in 2026.
So setting aside selling credits to other car companies and interest earned on reserves, Tesla is a money losing company again. Interesting.
In other news the stock is up almost 8%, lol.
-W
My puts are all doing great but I am tempted to buy more on this mini run up.
Even if Elon steps away from Doge, I still think damage has been done to the brand. It is not as doom and gloom as this forum or reddit makes it seem, but there is a good chunk of liberals who will continue buying EVs but never a Tesla.IDK, in Musk's absence, I wouldn't be surprised if the engineers and marketing teams have had the free space to generate some plausible ideas that would actually sell, like a worldwide $30k EV platform, a compact pickup, or an actually practical battery swap system.
My puts are all doing great but I am tempted to buy more on this mini run up.
My puts are all doing great but I am tempted to buy more on this mini run up.
Did you do it?
My puts are all doing great but I am tempted to buy more on this mini run up.
Did you do it?
Hopefully not, that would have been a big loss.
So setting aside selling credits to other car companies and interest earned on reserves, Tesla is a money losing company again. Interesting.
In other news the stock is up almost 8%, lol.
-W
You lost out on huge gains over those same years, but congrats I guess?
I get the sense Musk ordered resources into the Cybertruck and magic taxi/bus against expert advice, as his own version of the Schwerer Gustav (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Gustav), Hindenburg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg-class_airship), or Bismark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Bismarck). Concentrations of wealth and power can lead unrestrained megalomaniac leaders to ignore their engineers and generals and direct resources into groundbreaking, vain, and "biggest" things that are not practical.
Did we just evolve to have these crazy high margin software heavy business models? Is this what lead to insanely high PEs?
As expected, blue states are beginning to take aim at the emission credits given to Tesla. Here is an article (unlocked) from the Seattle Times about a bill being fast-tracked in the Washington State legislature to tax emission credits from Tesla: https://archive.is/pO3vQ. If passed, it would raise $75-100 million per year.
Other blue states (and countries) with these emission credit programs are likely working on similar efforts.
I am short TSLA via exactly one long put. $375 exposure.
What is the idea behind blue states getting rid of Tesla tax credits? Is it retaliating against DOGE and all of his antics? Is it to prop up legacy American auto maker EV production? Both?
I just don't see the vision with Tesla. Elon is irradict and the legacy auto makers are making up a lot of ground. 5 years ago, I would have bought a Tesla, but now Ford, Chevy, and Kia all have good options.
After pressure from Chinese regulators for the auto industry to “not engage in exaggerated and false publicity,” Tesla changed the Mandarin translation of Autopilot and Full Self-Drive from “Enhanced Autonomous Assistant Driving" and “Full Self-Driving Ability" to “Enhanced Assistant Driving” and “Intelligent Assistant Driving."
According to The Wall Street Journal, the pressure is increasing after a single fatal crash of a Xiaomi car driving under control of a driver-assistance system.
The US auto safety regulator said Friday that it has opened an investigation into Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) software after receiving four reports of crashes, one of which involved a pedestrian being struck and killed.https://www.barrons.com/news/us-regulator-probes-tesla-s-self-driving-mode-after-crashes-f1b6a05d
Donald Trump’s administration will make it easier to deploy self-driving cars on US roads and loosen crash reporting requirements, the most significant changes to federal rules on autonomous vehicles championed by Tesla chief executive Elon Musk.https://www.ft.com/content/4758aea9-dddd-444e-a1d3-f6fea0e28100
They want them to be junk so you buy a new one every 7 yearsI just don't see the vision with Tesla. Elon is irradict and the legacy auto makers are making up a lot of ground. 5 years ago, I would have bought a Tesla, but now Ford, Chevy, and Kia all have good options.
All new cars are basically disposable junk these days.
All new cars are basically disposable junk these days.They want them to be junk so you buy a new one every 7 years
7 years was a pretty good guess...for the 1970's.All new cars are basically disposable junk these days.They want them to be junk so you buy a new one every 7 years
What is your criteria for considering cars "disposable junk", and how are those objectively measured and compared to cars from a different time period?
I think the easiest comparison would be a car from 1985 with a metal body and a gasoline engine / transmission that would be lucky to last 100-150K miles. Now an EV tends to be so wrapped in plastic shrouding that you cannot see anything that could be repaired or worked on... but the battery and electric motors are expected to easily last 150K miles, if not a lot more.
What other parts are factored into this analysis? Are there studies that have quantified how long the various parts, and the whole package last?
Has the average length of car ownership in the U.S. decreased from 12 years to a (much) shorter timeframe?
And it could just be one car that's a billion years old throwing off the average!
And it could just be one car that's a billion years old throwing off the average!
. . . feels like a personal attack. :P
Anecdotal, but my parents' 1991 Chevy Lumina ate its own oil pump at 80,000 miles. The worst car I ever owned, a 1991 GMC Sonoma, leaked from 100% of the places it held fluids. My dad's Ford F150 made a decade later was sold running and driving with 200,000 miles. My Ford Ranger of the same era rusted a hole in a metal coolant line and started squirting at 140,000 miles, so I got rid of it, figuring the head gasket wasn't far behind.All new cars are basically disposable junk these days.They want them to be junk so you buy a new one every 7 years
What is your criteria for considering cars "disposable junk", and how are those objectively measured and compared to cars from a different time period?
I think the easiest comparison would be a car from 1985 with a metal body and a gasoline engine / transmission that would be lucky to last 100-150K miles. Now an EV tends to be so wrapped in plastic shrouding that you cannot see anything that could be repaired or worked on... but the battery and electric motors are expected to easily last 150K miles, if not a lot more.
What other parts are factored into this analysis? Are there studies that have quantified how long the various parts, and the whole package last?
Has the average length of car ownership in the U.S. decreased from 12 years to a (much) shorter timeframe?
Oh and EVs. Expected to last 150,000 miles or longer? Lets see how that works out. Most EV buyers seem to be swapping cars every couple of years and they are copping brutal depreciation for the privilege. There must be some reason the used car market doesn't value used EVs as a viable long-term vehicle.
Given technological advances in both conventional and electric vehicles in the last decade, neither seems to have longevity issues. With responsible driving and maintenance habits, both should last at least a decade, if not much longer.
To help encourage confidence in EVs, federal rules now require automakers to cover major components, like the battery and electric motor, for eight years or 100,000 miles, while California extends that to 10 years or 150,000 miles. Some EV automakers even offer a lifetime guarantee, something practically unheard of in conventional vehicle warranties.
There's a lot of survivorship bias going into that 'average age' chart. <snip> I have 2 cars one is over 20 years old and the other over 30 years old, both on original drivetrains.
There's a lot of survivorship bias going into that 'average age' chart. Most mechanics will tell you about how bad new cars are getting, I guess the only saving grace is that warranty periods are generally getting longer. 2015 onwards is getting grim. Kia/Hyundai have become true disposable cars with unrebuildable engines that are lucky to last the warranty period before expiring. Most cars these days have Direct injection, low tension piston rings, long oil-change intervals, oil spec as thin as water, 10 year coolant life, transmissions with 'lifetime fluid', CVT transmissions, large cars moving to smaller and smaller turbo engines, all these things designed to pretend the car has lower emissions and running costs come at a price. If your engine lasts 8 years instead of 20+, was it really economical? I have 2 cars one is over 20 years old and the other over 30 years old, both on original drivetrains. I just can't see that being the case for many new cars sold today.Agree 100% with your list of the ways car manufacturers are making things cheaper or adding horsepower at the expense of durability. Turbocharged grocery-getters... WTF? A followup question: What's the effect on the environment when cars last <10 years?
Oh and EVs. Expected to last 150,000 miles or longer? Lets see how that works out. Most EV buyers seem to be swapping cars every couple of years and they are copping brutal depreciation for the privilege. There must be some reason the used car market doesn't value used EVs as a viable long-term vehicle.
I don't know about cutting edge brand new cars, but cars that are 10-20 years old now are AMAZING compared to 10-20 year old cars when I was younger.
2015 onward, plus or minus a couple of years, is also roughly the timeframe when Tesla rose to prominence. The Model 3 arrived into a world where the legacy manufacturers had made it impossible to buy an inexpensive car without a ton of electronics/infotainment, features, a dozen airbags, an internet connection, and extreme mechanical complexity. Some of these underwhelming cars, like the Dodge Dart or Ford Focus, were loss leaders that only existed to meet fuel economy rules so that more SUVS and trucks could be sold, and this mentality showed through their massive quality problems.I don't know about cutting edge brand new cars, but cars that are 10-20 years old now are AMAZING compared to 10-20 year old cars when I was younger.I completely agree with this, cars just got better and better. But my point is around 2015 onwards that has changed. Manufacturers have realised they were over-engineering and building cars not just for the original buyer and 2nd owner but they were in some models building cars that could be bought 2 decades later for next to nothing and continue to driven reliably just with basic maintenance. They've now moved to a different philosophy that values efficiency of gas mileage and running costs over the warranty period over long term reliability. It's not just cars that are getting worse, it's everything. Pairs of jeans, washing machines. Nothing is built to last these days, enshitification is a real thing.
The other thing I forgot to mention about new vehicles is the amount of technology in them which is driving up costs for everyone. Headlights assembly in newer cars can cost up to $2000 each these days, even plastic bumpers are full of tech like cameras and radars and other sensors. Then there's all the new tech that goes into the drivetrains as well. These cars as they age are far more easily reaching a point where they are uneconomical to repair, which also will drive up insurance costs for everyone. EVs are a prime example for this, minor fender benders leave repairers wondering about the integrity of the battery which takes up the entire floor of the vehicle, these cars are then written off as a precaution. The cost of a battery replacement is more than the value of the car itself. The battery was probably fine, but the insurance company can't take the risk as damaged batteries are much more likely to explode and kill the occupants leaving the insurance company liable as they were meant to have fixed the car.
So if the average age of cars on the street is 12 years old... for every car you see that's newer than 2013, there's a corresponding one out there that's just as much older! (That's median talk, not mean, but it's not a bad approximation. And it could just be one car that's a billion years old throwing off the average! Or a bunch of classics that are counted, but just sit in a garage somewhere!)
Just had my 2018 Model 3 drive itself out of my garage to the hardware store then to the grocery store then back home. All on its own. No interventions. With late 2024 vintage software.
My dad just had his 2024 Model Y drive from Ann Arbor, Michigan to Biloxi, MS to Hotsprings, AR back to Ann Arbor. All on its own. No interventions. With late 2024 vintage software.
The advent of real world AI is the biggest deal in industrial technology since the steam engine. Just like muscle power was replaced by mechanics, intellectual labor is being replaced by computers.
Tesla is at the forefront of this trend. Keep this in mind if you are short. You might get your face ripped off.
Just had my 2018 Model 3 drive itself out of my garage to the hardware store then to the grocery store then back home. All on its own. No interventions. With late 2024 vintage software.
My dad just had his 2024 Model Y drive from Ann Arbor, Michigan to Biloxi, MS to Hotsprings, AR back to Ann Arbor. All on its own. No interventions. With late 2024 vintage software.
The advent of real world AI is the biggest deal in industrial technology since the steam engine. Just like muscle power was replaced by mechanics, intellectual labor is being replaced by computers.
Tesla is at the forefront of this trend. Keep this in mind if you are short. You might get your face ripped off.
Just had my 2018 Model 3 drive itself out of my garage to the hardware store then to the grocery store then back home. All on its own. No interventions. With late 2024 vintage software.
My dad just had his 2024 Model Y drive from Ann Arbor, Michigan to Biloxi, MS to Hotsprings, AR back to Ann Arbor. All on its own. No interventions. With late 2024 vintage software.
The advent of real world AI is the biggest deal in industrial technology since the steam engine. Just like muscle power was replaced by mechanics, intellectual labor is being replaced by computers.
Tesla is at the forefront of this trend. Keep this in mind if you are short. You might get your face ripped off.
Anecdotally, a friend uses FSD to drive to work every weekday and, every day, he has to take control at a certain left turn because the car still can't figure it out. If he didn't take control, he'd be in a head on collision at speed. That's an intervention every ~20 miles.
Speaking more broadly, when Tesla puts their insurance money on the line with robotaxis, then we're talking. For the record, I mean real robotaxi driving without a driver. Though the White House might indemnify Tesla...
Waymo is currently doing around 250,000 rides per week in 4 cities, with near term plans to expand to two more. This is without safety drivers. The Tesla robotaxi is slated to be in Austin only with an initial fleet of 10-20 vehicles, with operations geofenced and with teleoperators, so basically where Waymo was a number of years ago. Elon has repeatedly criticized Waymo's approach, so it's interesting to see him tacitly admitting that Waymo had it right.
I fully expect TSLA fanatics will pump this meme stock for all it's worth if/when robotaxi actually happens, but this isn't going to be the money printing monopoly many expect. Waymo has deep pockets and will continue to apply competitive pressure, and Uber/Lyft will further limit the upside profit potential of self driving ride service.
I just don't see the vision with Tesla. Elon is irradict and the legacy auto makers are making up a lot of ground. 5 years ago, I would have bought a Tesla, but now Ford, Chevy, and Kia all have good options.
I just don't see the vision with Tesla. Elon is irradict and the legacy auto makers are making up a lot of ground. 5 years ago, I would have bought a Tesla, but now Ford, Chevy, and Kia all have good options.
On the first page of this thread back in 2018, I said that Tesla had no moat. Today, I would rate that statement as basically wrong. My thinking was that Tesla had only just then posted its first profitable quarter (after however many years of losses), and once Tesla took the risk of proving there was a market, legacy manufacturers could jump in and produce their own EVs.
Again, that was basically wrong. Or at best, too early which is the same as being wrong. Tesla was able to produce EVs at high volumes at extremely high margins and nobody else could come close. Unfortunately for Tesla, they shot themselves in the foot. As you point out, there are now some good alternatives with more in the pipeline.
Tesla did not release a low cost mass market model--which was their stated business plan the whole time. Cybertruck was a flop because of the absurdly high price point. Tesla has not really refreshed their legacy models. The bet seems to be all in on the Cybercab, BUT that means they'll need to crack autonomous driving within the next couple years and that seems very unlikely. Even if they do crack it first, several other companies are hot on their heels with their own AV technology, and it is unlikely Tesla's advantage (if it gets one) will be durable.
I just don't see the vision with Tesla. Elon is irradict and the legacy auto makers are making up a lot of ground. 5 years ago, I would have bought a Tesla, but now Ford, Chevy, and Kia all have good options.
On the first page of this thread back in 2018, I said that Tesla had no moat. Today, I would rate that statement as basically wrong. My thinking was that Tesla had only just then posted its first profitable quarter (after however many years of losses), and once Tesla took the risk of proving there was a market, legacy manufacturers could jump in and produce their own EVs.
Again, that was basically wrong. Or at best, too early which is the same as being wrong. Tesla was able to produce EVs at high volumes at extremely high margins and nobody else could come close. Unfortunately for Tesla, they shot themselves in the foot. As you point out, there are now some good alternatives with more in the pipeline.
Tesla did not release a low cost mass market model--which was their stated business plan the whole time. Cybertruck was a flop because of the absurdly high price point. Tesla has not really refreshed their legacy models. The bet seems to be all in on the Cybercab, BUT that means they'll need to crack autonomous driving within the next couple years and that seems very unlikely. Even if they do crack it first, several other companies are hot on their heels with their own AV technology, and it is unlikely Tesla's advantage (if it gets one) will be durable.
Elon has repeatedly criticized Waymo's approach, so it's interesting to see him tacitly admitting that Waymo had it right.
IF Elon Musk can eat crow and adopt lidar + visual, then Tesla could potentially retake the lead with a little help from government favoritism, develop economies of scale, and.... sell their tech as a standard feature for no additional cost like BYD is doing? That's quite the justification for a three-digit PE ratio, for a company with falling sales.Elon has repeatedly criticized Waymo's approach, so it's interesting to see him tacitly admitting that Waymo had it right.This is true about their camera-only approach, too. Until Luminar began lidar production with Volvo, Tesla was their biggest customer. They use Luminar lidars for ground truth to train their vision systems on. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Teslas board has started a CEO search to replace Musk... Musk is largely why I hold short positions but I think it still has a ways to fall...
How many disappointments can a person take?
Teslas board has started a CEO search toreplacesucceed Musk... Musk is largely why I hold short positions but I think it still has a ways to fall...
Teslas board has started a CEO search toreplacesucceed Musk... Musk is largely why I hold short positions but I think it still has a ways to fall...
FIFY
While the board did begin the search, the also told him he needed to spend more time at the company. There isn't even an unreliable Tesla statement on timing. I haven't seen anything saying Musk is out, now or at a definite time. They could install this person as a COO or President or something, and he could still be around a long time.
From what I heard in the Financial News, Elon Musk will be Chairman of the Board while someone else becomes CEO. Musk has apparently acknowledged the need for that change. But the analyst also pointed out the big problem isn't Elon Musk at DOGE, but Elon Musk tweeting. That damage is unlikely to go away just because Elon Musk assumes a new role at Tesla.
Back when Tesla was the only EV maker, extremely high valuations reflected exponential growth of Tesla as it filled a worldwide need for EVs. But at present, with plenty of competition, a 155 P/E ratio seems less justified.
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnas/tsla/valuation
Tesla could still be the first manufacturer of AI robots, and revive its prospects by being first to that market. I don't know their competition in that space.
For self-driving taxis, Tesla is behind rivals like Waymo. Trump's rule changes to allow Tesla to drive more freely with its "FSV" may help it get miles and experience, but it also risks other safety issues.
Tesla could still be the first manufacturer of AI robots, and revive its prospects by being first to that market. I don't know their competition in that space.It's been 13 years since Honda unveiled its Asimo humanoid robot (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdQL11uWWcI), and about the same since we were sharing videos of a wide variety of Boston Dynamics robots (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR32ULxbjYc) dancing and independently dealing with obstacles. It's a good question to ask what happened to these products, and whether Tesla is trying to build a better Segway. Boston Dynamics is deploying its Atlas robots (https://finance.yahoo.com/video/boston-dynamics-humanoid-robot-hit-082319765.html) in a Hyundai factory this year, but it seems to be a parallel situation with the technical difficulties of FSD. In any case, all we know about Optimus is that it's aremote controlled toy, operated by a human (https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-10-15/tesla-optimus-bots-were-remotely-operated-at-cybercab-event). Whatever the intellectual capabilities of Asimo or Atlas, they are far beyond that.
For self-driving taxis, Tesla is behind rivals like Waymo. Trump's rule changes to allow Tesla to drive more freely with its "FSV" may help it get miles and experience, but it also risks other safety issues.To apply a lesson learned from Tesla's ultimately successful struggle to build a profitable electric car, we can assume the people actually building a business and collecting revenue doing the thing are technically years ahead of those who are talking about doing the thing. With electric cars a decade ago, it was Tesla doing the thing and the other automakers talking about it. With robotaxis, it is Waymo doing the thing and Tesla talking about it.
However, Waymo is way behind Tesla in the race to offering a scalable, profitable, and national driverless ride service. Waymo is operating in about a half dozen cities with around 2,000 vehicles that cost around $150k/each. That's after how many years for Waymo? In a year or two, Tesla will be operating a fleet of robotaxis that they mass produce in house for approximately $20k and at scale Tesla will produce more of them in a day than Waymo has on the road after five years.
Even the CEO of Google has stated Tesla is ahead in the FSD race.
But maxing out car sales is no longer Tesla's focus or goal.
My investment thesis and Tesla’s success does not require subsidies (Tesla continues to grow rapidly without Federal US EV subsidies). It doesn’t count on robo taxis or full self driving, the boring company, Tesla insurance, Tesla roof, or Tesla software services.
Texas is a special case that does not require an additional permit for autonomous vehicles, only that vehicles comply with all traffic and safety rules.
However, Waymo is way behind Tesla in the race to offering a scalable, profitable, and national driverless ride service. Waymo is operating in about a half dozen cities with around 2,000 vehicles that cost around $150k/each. That's after how many years for Waymo? In a year or two, Tesla will be operating a fleet of robotaxis that they mass produce in house for approximately $20k and at scale Tesla will produce more of them in a day than Waymo has on the road after five years.
This according to Tesla. You might recall that not that long ago Tesla's announced goal was to sell 20 million vehicles/year by 2030.* They were also going to deliver level 4 or 5 autonomy "next year" for I don't even know how many years now. Back in 2019 Tesla said said a base Cybertruck would be available in 2021 for $40,000. The Tesla Semi was supposed to start production in 2019, but has been re-scheduled for Real Soon™
A reasonable person could conclude that Tesla's business predictions are consistently over optimistic and it would be prudent to temper expectations.
FWIW, Tesla has not yet applied for autonomous ride-hailing service permits in any state. We know in Waymo's case that takes a couple years even using demonstrated technology. So it will probably take Tesla a similar amount of time once they begin the application process. However, Tesla has not yet demonstrated autonomous technology good enough that it won't require a safety driver. So the notion there will be thousands of things thing operating on the streets in one to two years, sounds very, very implausible.
Texas is a special case that does not require an additional permit for autonomous vehicles, only that vehicles comply with all traffic and safety rules. Presumably, that will speed things up, but Tesla is launching its service with a Model Y, not cybercab, with either a safety driver in the vehicle or a remote safety driver, which provides no technical advantage over Waymo.QuoteEven the CEO of Google has stated Tesla is ahead in the FSD race.
No, he said Tesla was "a leader." He didn't say Tesla was the leader, and he most definitely did not say Tesla is ahead.QuoteBut maxing out car sales is no longer Tesla's focus or goal.
Which raises the question, why not? A constant bull case theme throughout this thread is that Telsa has such a large lead on moribund legacy manufacturers that they won't ever be able to catch up, and as EV adoption increases (ultimately replacing ICE vehicles), the total global car market will be dominated by Tesla. Hence justifying its eye-popping stock price.
Now the narrative is that the global car market is too trivial for Tesla to really much bother with. it is the other stuff that will be the money maker. A bit of a contrast from thoughts expressed earlier in this thread:QuoteMy investment thesis and Tesla’s success does not require subsidies (Tesla continues to grow rapidly without Federal US EV subsidies). It doesn’t count on robo taxis or full self driving, the boring company, Tesla insurance, Tesla roof, or Tesla software services.
*You could correctly point out that it is not yet 2030, so this is still theoretically achievable. However, Tesla delivered about 1.8 million vehicles last year, a slight decline over the year before. It is easy to see why this is not plausible. And it wasn't plausible when the goal was announced either.
However, Waymo is way behind Tesla in the race to offering a scalable, profitable, and national driverless ride service. Waymo is operating in about a half dozen cities with around 2,000 vehicles that cost around $150k/each. That's after how many years for Waymo? In a year or two, Tesla will be operating a fleet of robotaxis that they mass produce in house for approximately $20k and at scale Tesla will produce more of them in a day than Waymo has on the road after five years.
This according to Tesla. You might recall that not that long ago Tesla's announced goal was to sell 20 million vehicles/year by 2030.* They were also going to deliver level 4 or 5 autonomy "next year" for I don't even know how many years now. Back in 2019 Tesla said said a base Cybertruck would be available in 2021 for $40,000. The Tesla Semi was supposed to start production in 2019, but has been re-scheduled for Real Soon™
A reasonable person could conclude that Tesla's business predictions are consistently over optimistic and it would be prudent to temper expectations.
FWIW, Tesla has not yet applied for autonomous ride-hailing service permits in any state. We know in Waymo's case that takes a couple years even using demonstrated technology. So it will probably take Tesla a similar amount of time once they begin the application process. However, Tesla has not yet demonstrated autonomous technology good enough that it won't require a safety driver. So the notion there will be thousands of things thing operating on the streets in one to two years, sounds very, very implausible.
Texas is a special case that does not require an additional permit for autonomous vehicles, only that vehicles comply with all traffic and safety rules. Presumably, that will speed things up, but Tesla is launching its service with a Model Y, not cybercab, with either a safety driver in the vehicle or a remote safety driver, which provides no technical advantage over Waymo.QuoteEven the CEO of Google has stated Tesla is ahead in the FSD race.
No, he said Tesla was "a leader." He didn't say Tesla was the leader, and he most definitely did not say Tesla is ahead.QuoteBut maxing out car sales is no longer Tesla's focus or goal.
Which raises the question, why not? A constant bull case theme throughout this thread is that Telsa has such a large lead on moribund legacy manufacturers that they won't ever be able to catch up, and as EV adoption increases (ultimately replacing ICE vehicles), the total global car market will be dominated by Tesla. Hence justifying its eye-popping stock price.
Now the narrative is that the global car market is too trivial for Tesla to really much bother with. it is the other stuff that will be the money maker. A bit of a contrast from thoughts expressed earlier in this thread:QuoteMy investment thesis and Tesla’s success does not require subsidies (Tesla continues to grow rapidly without Federal US EV subsidies). It doesn’t count on robo taxis or full self driving, the boring company, Tesla insurance, Tesla roof, or Tesla software services.
*You could correctly point out that it is not yet 2030, so this is still theoretically achievable. However, Tesla delivered about 1.8 million vehicles last year, a slight decline over the year before. It is easy to see why this is not plausible. And it wasn't plausible when the goal was announced either.
Texas is a special case that does not require an additional permit for autonomous vehicles, only that vehicles comply with all traffic and safety rules.
What is the penalty when the vehicles don't, and who pays it?
One can make a compelling list of things Tesla said they would do and to date have not accomplished. I can make an equally or more compelling list of things Tesla has said they'd do and went on to accomplish. Feel free to bet against Tesla delivering on its promises. But, here's the thing for me, if they only accomplish half of their goals and if half of those are late arriving, Tesla will still be wildly profitable and successful. I don't really care if I wait 1 year or 5 years for the next 10X jump. I have done it before while everyone was pointing out how slow the Model 3 ramp was and how Tesla would never be profitable and the competition would crush Tesla, but the panel gaps, etc.
CEO of Google absolutely said Tesla was ahead of Waymo. Go watch the video. Or find it where I posted it up thread.
Here's a great video with Ford CEO Jim Farley, explaining why legacy auto can't compete with Tesla (spoiler, they don't have the software expertise vertically integrated like Tesla). Ford just gave up on even trying to do the software "brain" for their new EV platform in house.
Of those new cars, 45,535 were BEVs—a 53.5 percent increase year over year. In the context of those rising BEV sales, Tesla's 46 percent year on year decline should have alarm bells ringing.
One can make a compelling list of things Tesla said they would do and to date have not accomplished. I can make an equally or more compelling list of things Tesla has said they'd do and went on to accomplish. Feel free to bet against Tesla delivering on its promises. But, here's the thing for me, if they only accomplish half of their goals and if half of those are late arriving, Tesla will still be wildly profitable and successful. I don't really care if I wait 1 year or 5 years for the next 10X jump. I have done it before while everyone was pointing out how slow the Model 3 ramp was and how Tesla would never be profitable and the competition would crush Tesla, but the panel gaps, etc.
As per the title of this thread, we're talking about the investment case. If, in 1999, you said that Cisco would be the company that provided the growth of the Internet, shared in that growth, and would be profitable and successful for the next two and half decades you would have been absolutely correct. However, 1999 was also a terrible time to invest in Cisco. Simply buying the index would have been vastly better--even thought it was and is a great company. The market can be whacky in either direction for long periods of time, but ultimately it is a weighing machine. If you overpay for future earnings you might be waiting decades for the payoff.
For purposes of discussing the investment case, it is reasonable to examine claims of future products with how those results have been delivered in the past. For example, if Tesla anticipates producing and operator/selling large volumes of cybercabs by next year as claimed, then it needs to be in the permitting process right now in a large number of locations. But it isn't. That doesn't mean Tesla will never produce/operate large volumes of cybercabs, just that it won't be doing it next year.CEO of Google absolutely said Tesla was ahead of Waymo. Go watch the video. Or find it where I posted it up thread.
Yes, I watched the full video when it came out. In context, Pichai is talking about Waymo as a success for Google. To my ear, he clearly says Tesla is "a leader" and that matches the video transcript. As a sanity check, I Googled a few news articles, and they all said "a leader" Regardless, this isn't a hill I want to die on. Reasonable minds can disagree.
https://youtu.be/OsxwBmp3iFU?si=RibfgLF4gU9UuxBSQuoteHere's a great video with Ford CEO Jim Farley, explaining why legacy auto can't compete with Tesla (spoiler, they don't have the software expertise vertically integrated like Tesla). Ford just gave up on even trying to do the software "brain" for their new EV platform in house.
That doesn't sound like something a CEO would say. I Googled the Phoebe Howard article screenshotted in the video, and sure enough the RealTesla video was...stretching things a bit. Spoiler: Farley didn't mention Tesla, he didn't say they can't compete, and he didn't say they giving up. He did say they need to do business differently than they do now. This will require different skill sets than they have now. They are in process of obtaining those things, even though that process is disruptive.
In a nutshell, Ford knows how to make ICE vehicles. They don't know much about making EVs, so they have to acquire that ability. That's just common sense, right?
There is a common narrative among Telsa bulls (and the RealTesla guy is definitely a bull) that Tesla is so far ahead in the EV field that legacy manufacturers will never catch up. I have never believed this. We're watching the legacy manufacturers begin to catch up right now. Tesla still has by far the largest EV market share in the US. But that lead has eroded a lot in the last two years as other manufacturers have begun to introduce EVs that consumers prefer over Tesla.
https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2022/03/22/ford-ceo-farley-talent-goals/9453474002/
You called me out, saying the Google CEO didn't call Tesla "the" leader in autonomous. I produce the video, with captioning, where the Google CEO clearly states "Obviously, Tesla is THE leader..." and you come back with "reasonable minds can disagree". At least if you just admitted to getting that detail wrong I could respect you for being an honest actor.
You called me out, saying the Google CEO didn't call Tesla "the" leader in autonomous. I produce the video, with captioning, where the Google CEO clearly states "Obviously, Tesla is THE leader..." and you come back with "reasonable minds can disagree". At least if you just admitted to getting that detail wrong I could respect you for being an honest actor.
Not to put too fine a point on it homeboy, but the interview was at the New York Times Deal Book Summit.
The video linked to was from the official New York Times Youtube channel. That transcript clearly says "a leader." And that's how it was widely reported in the news media.
On the other hand, you have a Tik Toc video from a Tesla Fanboi claiming something different.
So who are you going to believe? The people who actually conducted the interview, which was corroborated by journalists who were there, or your goofy Tik Fan Fanboi? I take back what I said about reasonable people. Your claims are pretty silly.
In related news: Upthread it was posited Tesla was a good investment in part because of its insurance business. In reality, Tesla is losing money in the insurance business, with a significantly worse loss ratio than the industry average. I'm sure there's Tik Toc video explaining why this is good thing.
https://insideevs.com/news/759156/tesla-insurance-loss-higher-average/
Doesn't matter who posted the video of the interview. The video is of the exchange and the audio is clear. The man clearly says "Tesla is THE leader". The rest is just mental gymnastics on your part.
Doesn't matter who posted the video of the interview. The video is of the exchange and the audio is clear. The man clearly says "Tesla is THE leader". The rest is just mental gymnastics on your part.
My point exactly. You are saying the original video (and the transcript of that original video) can't be trusted because you found an edited version on Tik Toc that you like better.
That's silly.
We're basing investment decisions on whether some person being interviewed said "a" or "the."
I even sold off a good chunk to lock in some profits.
I even sold off a good chunk to lock in some profits.
If that's not a bad sign I don't know what is!
-W
… it seems hard to believe Tesla is really meaningfully far ahead in that field (despite being an early leader) - many others seem caught up or pretty close. I know nothing about the autonomous driving etc. I do wonder whether in that field being a follower might be the safer path (see the mistakes the leader makes - and gets sued for - and learn from that to establish a reputation for safety). But history will eventually tell us the answer.History is full of examples where the first mover in a new market or technology is outpaced by companies who entered the market later. For example:
Sometimes the incumbent is dethroned due to technological advancements, and other times it is due to management mistakes.
Tesla is a special case. It was explained to me they are voluntarily ceding their EV market dominance in order explore other opportunities. I've never heard of a market leader just giving up like that before. Gutsy move, if true.Tesla management looked at their three-digit PE ratio, looked at a trajectory of becoming a regular mass-production low-margin automaker with a single-digit PE ratio, and decided to gamble it all on remaining a cutting edge growth company forever by continually inventing new growth narratives.
4) In desperation, Musk introduces "Johnny Cab" which is driven by a fake Optimus robot and is designed to work on Mars.
Elon’s recent claim that he is “refocusing” on Tesla is not only tone-deaf, it’s insulting. It implies that the hardships of the past six months stem from a lack of his attention, not from his actions. It shifts the blame onto the very people who have held this company together. Let’s be clear: we are not the problem. Our products are not the problem. Our engineering, service, and delivery teams are not the problem. The problem is demand. The problem is Elon.
A group of Tesla employees have published an open letter calling on Musk to step down:Always nice to hear employees talking about the struggles to hold their company together. It certainly implies there are forces that would pull the company apart.
https://electrek.co/2025/05/11/tesla-employees-ask-elon-musk-resign-confirm-massive-demand-problem-get-fired/
It says that Tesla sales in the U.S. are falling, even though overall EV demand is increasing, and unsold inventory is piling up. It says that there are no problems with quality (I don't agree with that, but whatever), and no shortfall of production. The only problem is the guy at the top:QuoteElon’s recent claim that he is “refocusing” on Tesla is not only tone-deaf, it’s insulting. It implies that the hardships of the past six months stem from a lack of his attention, not from his actions. It shifts the blame onto the very people who have held this company together. Let’s be clear: we are not the problem. Our products are not the problem. Our engineering, service, and delivery teams are not the problem. The problem is demand. The problem is Elon.
It's not clear how many people signed onto this, since they obviously fear retribution. The one Tesla employee who was willing to put his name on it has already been fired.
I just listened to the latest Road to Autonomy podcast, and have figured out why the robotaxi launch is in June: according to Grayson Brulte, his FSD 13 Tesla cannot recognize school zones.
Better work on that "edge case" that is in every town in America.
He also mentioned that it could not recognize ducks crossing the road.
More seriously, the podcast was centered on Waymo, and its position in the market. Relevant to the upthread conversation.
the FSD is already obeying speed limits, braking for pedestrians, etc...
the FSD is already obeying speed limits, braking for pedestrians, etc...
I think this is the incorrect assumption you're making.
Tesla's FSD has always previously allowed a driver to go well above the posted speed limit. My understanding is that the current release of FSD has limited this (much to the consternation of Tesla owners) so that it will now only maintain above the speed limit if the user presses the accelerator to push the car beyond the speed it initially chooses - but FSD will still speed.
There are too many instances to post of Teslas using FSD not braking for pedestrians or causing other safety concerns.
- https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/05/teslas-full-self-driving-sees-pedestrian-chooses-not-to-slow-down/ (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/05/teslas-full-self-driving-sees-pedestrian-chooses-not-to-slow-down/)
- https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/25/23737972/tesla-whistleblower-leak-fsd-complaints-self-driving (https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/25/23737972/tesla-whistleblower-leak-fsd-complaints-self-driving)
- https://www.teslaownersonline.com/threads/fsd-12-supervised-erratic-behavior.32739/ (https://www.teslaownersonline.com/threads/fsd-12-supervised-erratic-behavior.32739/)
I just listened to the latest Road to Autonomy podcast, and have figured out why the robotaxi launch is in June: according to Grayson Brulte, his FSD 13 Tesla cannot recognize school zones.
Better work on that "edge case" that is in every town in America.
He also mentioned that it could not recognize ducks crossing the road.
More seriously, the podcast was centered on Waymo, and its position in the market. Relevant to the upthread conversation.
What is it about school zones that would make the Tesla FSD behave differently? I know the obvious answer is there are students around, but the FSD is already obeying speed limits, braking for pedestrians, etc... so are we expecting it to be "extra diligent" in a school zone, or what?
the FSD is already obeying speed limits, braking for pedestrians, etc...
I think this is the incorrect assumption you're making.
Tesla's FSD has always previously allowed a driver to go well above the posted speed limit. My understanding is that the current release of FSD has limited this (much to the consternation of Tesla owners) so that it will now only maintain above the speed limit if the user presses the accelerator to push the car beyond the speed it initially chooses - but FSD will still speed.
There are too many instances to post of Teslas using FSD not braking for pedestrians or causing other safety concerns.
- https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/05/teslas-full-self-driving-sees-pedestrian-chooses-not-to-slow-down/ (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/05/teslas-full-self-driving-sees-pedestrian-chooses-not-to-slow-down/)
- https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/25/23737972/tesla-whistleblower-leak-fsd-complaints-self-driving (https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/25/23737972/tesla-whistleblower-leak-fsd-complaints-self-driving)
- https://www.teslaownersonline.com/threads/fsd-12-supervised-erratic-behavior.32739/ (https://www.teslaownersonline.com/threads/fsd-12-supervised-erratic-behavior.32739/)
Then FSD is not ready for those reasons, not because it "can't recognize a school zone", right?
the FSD is already obeying speed limits, braking for pedestrians, etc...
I think this is the incorrect assumption you're making.
Tesla's FSD has always previously allowed a driver to go well above the posted speed limit. My understanding is that the current release of FSD has limited this (much to the consternation of Tesla owners) so that it will now only maintain above the speed limit if the user presses the accelerator to push the car beyond the speed it initially chooses - but FSD will still speed.
There are too many instances to post of Teslas using FSD not braking for pedestrians or causing other safety concerns.
- https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/05/teslas-full-self-driving-sees-pedestrian-chooses-not-to-slow-down/ (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/05/teslas-full-self-driving-sees-pedestrian-chooses-not-to-slow-down/)
- https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/25/23737972/tesla-whistleblower-leak-fsd-complaints-self-driving (https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/25/23737972/tesla-whistleblower-leak-fsd-complaints-self-driving)
- https://www.teslaownersonline.com/threads/fsd-12-supervised-erratic-behavior.32739/ (https://www.teslaownersonline.com/threads/fsd-12-supervised-erratic-behavior.32739/)
Then FSD is not ready for those reasons, not because it "can't recognize a school zone", right?
Well . . . yeah. But FSD is coming to a street near you soon, regardless of readiness.
TSLA just seems to keep pumping. They must know something that I don't. I just don't get it.It's a high beta stock in a rising market. It also fell hard in the recent correction.
https://eletric-vehicles.com/tesla/jp-morgan-raises-position-in-tesla-to-a-new-record-high/
https://eletric-vehicles.com/tesla/blackrock-boosts-tesla-stake-for-23rd-straight-quarter-reaches-record-206m-shares/
https://x.com/TheSonOfWalkley/status/1923794687048954164
Apparently institutional buyers have not been keeping up with this thread to learn that Tesla is in fact doomed (again).
https://eletric-vehicles.com/tesla/jp-morgan-raises-position-in-tesla-to-a-new-record-high/
https://eletric-vehicles.com/tesla/blackrock-boosts-tesla-stake-for-23rd-straight-quarter-reaches-record-206m-shares/
https://x.com/TheSonOfWalkley/status/1923794687048954164
Apparently institutional buyers have not been keeping up with this thread to learn that Tesla is in fact doomed (again).
In the past dozens of posts, yours is the only one using the word "doomed". You're creating a fake argument to shoot down.
Business Insider just did a head-to-head test of FSD (13.2.8) vs. Waymo in San Francisco (https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-vs-waymo-full-self-driving-fsd-robotaxi-lidar-cameras-2025-5), using a round trip. At the halfway point, the judgement was neck-and-neck. On the return trip, however, the Tesla ran a red light.
https://eletric-vehicles.com/tesla/jp-morgan-raises-position-in-tesla-to-a-new-record-high/
https://eletric-vehicles.com/tesla/blackrock-boosts-tesla-stake-for-23rd-straight-quarter-reaches-record-206m-shares/
https://x.com/TheSonOfWalkley/status/1923794687048954164
Apparently institutional buyers have not been keeping up with this thread to learn that Tesla is in fact doomed (again).
In the past dozens of posts, yours is the only one using the word "doomed". You're creating a fake argument to shoot down.
Yes! My point has been that a simple pullback to, say, Nvidia's P/E would be a 75% drop from here.
It's not exactly that Nvidia is hated, or that that would put TSLA at a below-market multiple, or something.
It's how far into nosebleed territory the stock is.
https://eletric-vehicles.com/tesla/jp-morgan-raises-position-in-tesla-to-a-new-record-high/
https://eletric-vehicles.com/tesla/blackrock-boosts-tesla-stake-for-23rd-straight-quarter-reaches-record-206m-shares/
https://x.com/TheSonOfWalkley/status/1923794687048954164
Apparently institutional buyers have not been keeping up with this thread to learn that Tesla is in fact doomed (again).
In the past dozens of posts, yours is the only one using the word "doomed". You're creating a fake argument to shoot down.
Yes! My point has been that a simple pullback to, say, Nvidia's P/E would be a 75% drop from here.
It's not exactly that Nvidia is hated, or that that would put TSLA at a below-market multiple, or something.
It's how far into nosebleed territory the stock is.
Don't know what to tell you. Clearly, Vanguard, JP Morgan, and Black Rock are not concerned with Tesla's P/E ratio. Likely because they have come around to the fact that Tesla is not a car company, so judging investment worthiness off a PE ratio driven by car sales and skewed by reinvestment into new products is not the correct metric for this stock. They see the TAMs of FSD, robot taxis, semi truck, Tesla energy, AI, and humanoid robotics. They have access to Tesla that retail does not and they are clearly satisfied that Tesla is making progress and/or the leader in one of more of these growth ventures. What's really interesting is that JP Morgan has been talking down Tesla the company (scaring off retail investors), at the same time they've been gobbling up shares. Pretty evident they see the stock price increasing in the not too distant future or they would wait to buy down the road.
Business Insider just did a head-to-head test of FSD (13.2.8) vs. Waymo in San Francisco (https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-vs-waymo-full-self-driving-fsd-robotaxi-lidar-cameras-2025-5), using a round trip. At the halfway point, the judgement was neck-and-neck. On the return trip, however, the Tesla ran a red light.
Tesla is dooooomed!!
Business Insider just did a head-to-head test of FSD (13.2.8) vs. Waymo in San Francisco (https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-vs-waymo-full-self-driving-fsd-robotaxi-lidar-cameras-2025-5), using a round trip. At the halfway point, the judgement was neck-and-neck. On the return trip, however, the Tesla ran a red light.
Tesla is dooooomed!!
I made no such judgement.
As an automotive engineer, I am appalled at the idea that such defects exist, one month from supposed launch. And, I laugh at the ineptitude of such defects existing in the city that they have the most experience and most data in. If it could happen in San Fran, it could definitely happen more often elsewhere.
https://eletric-vehicles.com/tesla/jp-morgan-raises-position-in-tesla-to-a-new-record-high/
https://eletric-vehicles.com/tesla/blackrock-boosts-tesla-stake-for-23rd-straight-quarter-reaches-record-206m-shares/
https://x.com/TheSonOfWalkley/status/1923794687048954164
Apparently institutional buyers have not been keeping up with this thread to learn that Tesla is in fact doomed (again).
In the past dozens of posts, yours is the only one using the word "doomed". You're creating a fake argument to shoot down.
Yes! My point has been that a simple pullback to, say, Nvidia's P/E would be a 75% drop from here.
It's not exactly that Nvidia is hated, or that that would put TSLA at a below-market multiple, or something.
It's how far into nosebleed territory the stock is.
Don't know what to tell you. Clearly, Vanguard, JP Morgan, and Black Rock are not concerned with Tesla's P/E ratio. Likely because they have come around to the fact that Tesla is not a car company, so judging investment worthiness off a PE ratio driven by car sales and skewed by reinvestment into new products is not the correct metric for this stock. They see the TAMs of FSD, robot taxis, semi truck, Tesla energy, AI, and humanoid robotics. They have access to Tesla that retail does not and they are clearly satisfied that Tesla is making progress and/or the leader in one of more of these growth ventures. What's really interesting is that JP Morgan has been talking down Tesla the company (scaring off retail investors), at the same time they've been gobbling up shares. Pretty evident they see the stock price increasing in the not too distant future or they would wait to buy down the road.
A simpler explanation: all 3 own index funds. Two of them are the largest index funds in the world.
Do some more digging, and maybe I would believe it wasn't that simple.
Index fund holdings are generally weighted by market cap with the intent of mirroring the performance of benchmarks like the S&P 500. Tesla stock price dropped in Q1 from $346/share to $293/share, which means in order to maintain the proper weighting of TSLA in their funds, these institutions would have been selling off Tesla shares when rebalancing, not buying.
Next time you do your own homework. The answers are out there.
Index fund holdings are generally weighted by market cap with the intent of mirroring the performance of benchmarks like the S&P 500. Tesla stock price dropped in Q1 from $346/share to $293/share, which means in order to maintain the proper weighting of TSLA in their funds, these institutions would have been selling off Tesla shares when rebalancing, not buying.
Next time you do your own homework. The answers are out there.
The great thing about market cap weighting is that you never have to buy or sell shares to maintain balance in the index.
Imagine an index with exactly two companies: LittlesharesCorp ($100/share $2T market cap) and BigsharesInc ($500 share, $2T market cap).
I invest $5,000 in a market cap weighted fund, which means the fund buys 25 shares of LittlesharesCorp ($2,500 value) and 5 shares of BigsharesInc ($2,500 value), which is a 50/50 split of value, what I want for a market cap fund.
Then BigsharesInc experiences an 80% price drop. Now its shares are worth $100 share and its market cap is only $400B. Time to rebalance, right?
To maintain market cap weighting, I should have 2/2.4 = 83% of my investment in LittlesharesCorp and 0.4/2.4 =17% of my investment in BigSharesInc. My five shares of BigSharesInc are worth $500 (5 shares * $100/share), my 25 shares of LittlesharesCorp are worth $2500 (25 shares * 100/share) and my total portfolio is worth $3,000 ($2,500+$500).
That means my investments are 17% in BigSharesInc ($500/$3000) and 83% in LittlesharesCorp ($2500/$3000), exactly mirroring the market cap ratio and I don't need to buy or sell anything.
Business Insider just did a head-to-head test of FSD (13.2.8) vs. Waymo in San Francisco (https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-vs-waymo-full-self-driving-fsd-robotaxi-lidar-cameras-2025-5), using a round trip. At the halfway point, the judgement was neck-and-neck. On the return trip, however, the Tesla ran a red light.
Tesla is dooooomed!!
I made no such judgement.
As an automotive engineer, I am appalled at the idea that such defects exist, one month from supposed launch. And, I laugh at the ineptitude of such defects existing in the city that they have the most experience and most data in. If it could happen in San Fran, it could definitely happen more often elsewhere.
Relax. It was a tongue-in-cheek response based on previous posts up thread.
Business Insider has a notorious anti-Tesla bias to their coverage. Case-in-point with this article. The unscientific "test" was a to be a one-way drive from point A to point B, which both vehicles accomplished without incident. The authors then decided to extend the test for the return trip for no explained reason.
The Tesla vehicle did not blow through a red light. According to the authors account, the Tesla came to a full stop at an irregular intersection that was red, but then proceeded through the intersection and the red-light when no cross traffic was detected. The Tesla did not fail to see the red-light and no lives were put at risk. If the Tesla did in fact proceed after "looking" that is still a significant issue, but context matters.
As an engineer, you should be appalled that the Waymo vehicle was declared the "winner" despite not being subjected to the same intersection. It took a different route back. You should also probably question why there is no video of the test drives and the alleged red light incident? That's a huge red flag. Especially since Tesla's FSD can be overridden by the driver. So, a driver can push a car forward through a red light or stop sign with FSD engaged by pressing the accelerator.
Lastly. I have driven FSD for two separate months, several hours, and hundreds of miles using prior versions of FSD. My vehicle never made a safety critical mistake like going through a stop sign or red light. I place way more value on my personal experience and the dozens of unedited FSD videos available on line, over one second-hand account from a biased source, using flawed test parameters, inadequate sample size, and offering no video. It appears to me that they extended the "test" to get the desired result and offer no visual confirmation of their account even though they could have easily recorded the entire test drive and posted it for all to see. They are journalist right? Perhaps video evidence would have opened them up to a defamation lawsuit? Inept or corrupt, take your pick I guess.
Business Insider just did a head-to-head test of FSD (13.2.8) vs. Waymo in San Francisco (https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-vs-waymo-full-self-driving-fsd-robotaxi-lidar-cameras-2025-5), using a round trip. At the halfway point, the judgement was neck-and-neck. On the return trip, however, the Tesla ran a red light.
Tesla is dooooomed!!
I made no such judgement.
As an automotive engineer, I am appalled at the idea that such defects exist, one month from supposed launch. And, I laugh at the ineptitude of such defects existing in the city that they have the most experience and most data in. If it could happen in San Fran, it could definitely happen more often elsewhere.
Relax. It was a tongue-in-cheek response based on previous posts up thread.
Business Insider has a notorious anti-Tesla bias to their coverage. Case-in-point with this article. The unscientific "test" was a to be a one-way drive from point A to point B, which both vehicles accomplished without incident. The authors then decided to extend the test for the return trip for no explained reason.
The Tesla vehicle did not blow through a red light. According to the authors account, the Tesla came to a full stop at an irregular intersection that was red, but then proceeded through the intersection and the red-light when no cross traffic was detected. The Tesla did not fail to see the red-light and no lives were put at risk. If the Tesla did in fact proceed after "looking" that is still a significant issue, but context matters.
As an engineer, you should be appalled that the Waymo vehicle was declared the "winner" despite not being subjected to the same intersection. It took a different route back. You should also probably question why there is no video of the test drives and the alleged red light incident? That's a huge red flag. Especially since Tesla's FSD can be overridden by the driver. So, a driver can push a car forward through a red light or stop sign with FSD engaged by pressing the accelerator.
Lastly. I have driven FSD for two separate months, several hours, and hundreds of miles using prior versions of FSD. My vehicle never made a safety critical mistake like going through a stop sign or red light. I place way more value on my personal experience and the dozens of unedited FSD videos available on line, over one second-hand account from a biased source, using flawed test parameters, inadequate sample size, and offering no video. It appears to me that they extended the "test" to get the desired result and offer no visual confirmation of their account even though they could have easily recorded the entire test drive and posted it for all to see. They are journalist right? Perhaps video evidence would have opened them up to a defamation lawsuit? Inept or corrupt, take your pick I guess.
You disparage the methodology of others, and suggest we substitute your own single example? Do you always drive with scientific rigor? I admit these are often journalists or anecdotal reports, but your retort makes no sense.
I never said the Tesla blew through a red light. It is as you describe: it stopped, and then proceeded through a solid red light. This is somehow OK because it didn't detect any other traffic? Would a police officer at the intersection approve of that behavior? How about a driver's license examiner?
The intersection where this happened is a tricky one--a 5-way. Yes, it's unusual. No, it's not unique. And yes, as an engineer, I would much rather have an autonomous vehicle avoid an intersection it can't properly process than break the law attempting it.
Index fund holdings are generally weighted by market cap with the intent of mirroring the performance of benchmarks like the S&P 500. Tesla stock price dropped in Q1 from $346/share to $293/share, which means in order to maintain the proper weighting of TSLA in their funds, these institutions would have been selling off Tesla shares when rebalancing, not buying.
Next time you do your own homework. The answers are out there.
The great thing about market cap weighting is that you never have to buy or sell shares to maintain balance in the index.
Imagine an index with exactly two companies: LittlesharesCorp ($100/share $2T market cap) and BigsharesInc ($500 share, $2T market cap).
I invest $5,000 in a market cap weighted fund, which means the fund buys 25 shares of LittlesharesCorp ($2,500 value) and 5 shares of BigsharesInc ($2,500 value), which is a 50/50 split of value, what I want for a market cap fund.
Then BigsharesInc experiences an 80% price drop. Now its shares are worth $100 share and its market cap is only $400B. Time to rebalance, right?
To maintain market cap weighting, I should have 2/2.4 = 83% of my investment in LittlesharesCorp and 0.4/2.4 =17% of my investment in BigSharesInc. My five shares of BigSharesInc are worth $500 (5 shares * $100/share), my 25 shares of LittlesharesCorp are worth $2500 (25 shares * 100/share) and my total portfolio is worth $3,000 ($2,500+$500).
That means my investments are 17% in BigSharesInc ($500/$3000) and 83% in LittlesharesCorp ($2500/$3000), exactly mirroring the market cap ratio and I don't need to buy or sell anything.
Since there are no funds comprised of two stocks I fail to see the relevancy of this theoretical. Funds are comprised of dozens of stocks and when some move up, some move down and some stay the same it does inevitably require rebalancing for the funds to mirror their benchmarks.
But getting this back on topic, rebalancing (or even an absence of a need to rebalance) would not explain why institutions were buying Tesla shares hand over fist in Q1, despite all the doom and gloom over auto sales. Are Vanguard, Black Rock, and JP Morgan secretly comprised of koolaide drinkers and fan bois? Some one needs to inform them of the PE ratio ASAP.
Maizefolk was only using a two-share index to make it easier for you to follow. By definition a whole index fund never has to rebalance unless a share drops out of / is added to the index. They only buy and sell shares when cash flows in or out of the fund via contributions, dividends, withdrawals, etc. With those cash flows they buy and sell all shares at once in proportion to the companies market cap. If investors are still putting more into the fund than they are drawing out, then the fund will be buying Tesla in exactly the same way as it buys every other company. They don't make any value judgement about whether the stock is worth its price.
Earlier this year, BYD (of China) announced new EV charging that is much faster than Tesla's. Now we wait to see if Tesla innovates next, or BYD does. The risk is that Tesla is behind on both batteries and self-driving, which used to be the main selling points. Along with reputation damage from the Tesla CEO's politics, it seems like Tesla has a lot of work to do - just to catch up.I suspect this is the case. A large part of the tariffs and Musk's involvement in the administration has been about protecting Tesla from superior foreign competition.
And if Tesla is behind on the basics of autonomous EVs, how is the whole robotaxi thing supposed to work?
...robotaxi, with no steering wheel...
Tesla did apply in California, which was approved in March.
Also, their Austin taxis will be Model Y's, since the robotaxi, with no steering wheel, can't have a safety driver. It would be an interesting paradox to see robotaxi production start, sinking all that capital, but without a system ready to utilize them. Would even Elon have that much hubris?
Also, their Austin taxis will be Model Y's, since the robotaxi, with no steering wheel, can't have a safety driver.
QuoteAlso, their Austin taxis will be Model Y's, since the robotaxi, with no steering wheel, can't have a safety driver. It would be an interesting paradox to see robotaxi production start, sinking all that capital, but without a system ready to utilize them. Would even Elon have that much hubris?
That's rhetorical, right?
Tesla did apply in California, which was approved in March.
Also, their Austin taxis will be Model Y's, since the robotaxi, with no steering wheel, can't have a safety driver. It would be an interesting paradox to see robotaxi production start, sinking all that capital, but without a system ready to utilize them. Would even Elon have that much hubris?
Interestingly, Uber came up as a potential stock to research further. Their cash-flow has gone from negligible in 2022 to ~$2B a quarter in the last year. The valuation doesn't seem ridiculous given the growth profile.
None of it makes sense anymore. What has really changed to make the stock bounce back so much?
Tesla is currently 1.67% of a share of VOO and 1.44% of a share of VTI.
Tesla is the 7th biggest company by market cap in the SP500 with a value of $1.15 Trillion dollars as of May 28th, 2025
I dont think companies get this big because they are a meme stock
Trying to find logic in the illogical is losing game.None of it makes sense anymore. What has really changed to make the stock bounce back so much?
Meme stocks gonna meme. Don't think about it too hard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlVq4VwmN7c
The race is not to proof of concept. That's all Waymo has at present. The race is to scalability and profitability. Tesla leads that race by virtue of its lead in autonomous (supervised) miles driven, vehicle manufacturing cost (i.e., Tesla manufactures its own AEVs with autonomous hardware seamlessly integrated), and AI advantage. Waymo's reliance on geofencing, lidar, and thousands of line of code put it at an inherent disadvantage to Tesla's approach.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlVq4VwmN7c
The race is not to proof of concept. That's all Waymo has at present. The race is to scalability and profitability. Tesla leads that race by virtue of its lead in autonomous (supervised) miles driven, vehicle manufacturing cost (i.e., Tesla manufactures its own AEVs with autonomous hardware seamlessly integrated), and AI advantage. Waymo's reliance on geofencing, lidar, and thousands of line of code put it at an inherent disadvantage to Tesla's approach.
Don't forget Tesla's lead in deaths due to autonomous driving, and the unclear legal liability that future deaths will entail for the company.
My Tesla Model Y has been driving me around for the last 3 days on version 13.2.8. Conditions ranging from highway to city, day and night, sun to heavy rain, and construction zones. I've never been more confident in my Tesla investment. Version 13 is a dramatic improvement from version 12, which was a drastic improvement from prior versions. My car is essentially functioning as a robotaxi and driving me around like a passenger. The train is about to leave the station. Those parsing PE ratios will be left standing on the platform.Ha, to me, that sounds horrible. I fully engage as a driver. The idea of other drivers being carted around while they doomscroll is nightmare fuel.
The race is not to proof of concept. That's all Waymo has at present. The race is to scalability and profitability. Tesla leads that race by virtue of its lead in autonomous (supervised) miles driven, vehicle manufacturing cost (i.e., Tesla manufactures its own AEVs with autonomous hardware seamlessly integrated), and AI advantage. Waymo's reliance on geofencing, lidar, and thousands of line of code put it at an inherent disadvantage to Tesla's approach.
My Tesla Model Y has been driving me around for the last 3 days on version 13.2.8. Conditions ranging from highway to city, day and night, sun to heavy rain, and construction zones. I've never been more confident in my Tesla investment. Version 13 is a dramatic improvement from version 12, which was a drastic improvement from prior versions. My car is essentially functioning as a robotaxi and driving me around like a passenger. The train is about to leave the station. Those parsing PE ratios will be left standing on the platform.Ha, to me, that sounds horrible. I fully engage as a driver. The idea of other drivers being carted around while they doomscroll is nightmare fuel.
This just reinforces my decision to stop riding street motorcycles over a decade ago.
Maybe I listened to Red Barchetta by Rush too many times
https://youtu.be/_LXKZq0fYDw?si=wrvKp0WqckmSccpm
My Tesla Model Y has been driving me around for the last 3 days on version 13.2.8. Conditions ranging from highway to city, day and night, sun to heavy rain, and construction zones. I've never been more confident in my Tesla investment. Version 13 is a dramatic improvement from version 12, which was a drastic improvement from prior versions. My car is essentially functioning as a robotaxi and driving me around like a passenger. The train is about to leave the station. Those parsing PE ratios will be left standing on the platform.Ha, to me, that sounds horrible. I fully engage as a driver. The idea of other drivers being carted around while they doomscroll is nightmare fuel.
This just reinforces my decision to stop riding street motorcycles over a decade ago.
Maybe I listened to Red Barchetta by Rush too many times
https://youtu.be/_LXKZq0fYDw?si=wrvKp0WqckmSccpm
Do you also enjoy sharing the road with drunk drivers, teen drivers, distracted drivers, impaired drivers, exhausted drivers, angry drivers, road raging drivers and suicidal drivers?
AEVs don't drive drunk, tired, angry, sad, distracted or impaired. My Tesla Model Y keeps all eight of its eyes on the road in all directions and all times and has a faster reaction time than me. I'm not much for doom scrolling, but I will gladly read a book, nap, eat a meal, type some emails, and generally repurpose monotonous driving time as productive time. Jeez, the more I think about it, this sounds horrible.
The race is not to proof of concept. That's all Waymo has at present. The race is to scalability and profitability. Tesla leads that race by virtue of its lead in autonomous (supervised) miles driven, vehicle manufacturing cost (i.e., Tesla manufactures its own AEVs with autonomous hardware seamlessly integrated), and AI advantage. Waymo's reliance on geofencing, lidar, and thousands of line of code put it at an inherent disadvantage to Tesla's approach.
Yet in Austin, Tesla is using Waymo's concept of geofencing with remote safety operators. If what you are saying is true, why would they do that? The answer of course is that internally Tesla doesn't believe that their version of FSD will be good enough for ride hailing in a reasonable time frame. So if Tesla wants to do AV riding hailing--which they've been saying they want to do for years--they need to start developing some capability in this area even though their tech isn't fully ready.
I don't want trot out the broken record too much, but this is also confirmed by Tesla's permitting timeline. Texas does not require special AV ride hailing permits. As far as I know, all other jurisdictions do. The AV ride hailing permit process takes months or years. And as Uber found out, even with human drivers there are a lot of entrenched interests in the ride hailing industry. You can't just snap your fingers and roll it out. I imagine that's even more cumbersome when you are potentially displaying human workers. Thus far, Tesla has announced no AV riding hailing permit applications in any jurisdiction. This is a clear indication Tesla does not believe they are ready to do so.
This isn't specifically related to Tesla, they're just the company with the highest automated driving kill count so far. They've managed to defend themselves legally by having the self-driving automatically turn off when an accident seems imminent, and sternly warning in user agreements that Full Self Driving is never to be used to fully self drive the vehicle. Something that you're excited they appear soon to abandon.
I agree with you that there will never be zero vehicle deaths. That's why it will be interesting to see how legal liability is appointed when deaths occur. Does the owner relying on the software pay, does the company providing the software pay, does the programmer who worked on the software pay? I dunno, but it seems likely that any answer to that question will reduce profitability of a company doing self driving.
My Tesla Model Y has been driving me around for the last 3 days on version 13.2.8. Conditions ranging from highway to city, day and night, sun to heavy rain, and construction zones. I've never been more confident in my Tesla investment. Version 13 is a dramatic improvement from version 12, which was a drastic improvement from prior versions. My car is essentially functioning as a robotaxi and driving me around like a passenger. The train is about to leave the station. Those parsing PE ratios will be left standing on the platform.Ha, to me, that sounds horrible. I fully engage as a driver. The idea of other drivers being carted around while they doomscroll is nightmare fuel.
This just reinforces my decision to stop riding street motorcycles over a decade ago.
Maybe I listened to Red Barchetta by Rush too many times
https://youtu.be/_LXKZq0fYDw?si=wrvKp0WqckmSccpm
Do you also enjoy sharing the road with drunk drivers, teen drivers, distracted drivers, impaired drivers, exhausted drivers, angry drivers, road raging drivers and suicidal drivers?
AEVs don't drive drunk, tired, angry, sad, distracted or impaired. My Tesla Model Y keeps all eight of its eyes on the road in all directions and all times and has a faster reaction time than me. I'm not much for doom scrolling, but I will gladly read a book, nap, eat a meal, type some emails, and generally repurpose monotonous driving time as productive time. Jeez, the more I think about it, this sounds horrible.
Tesla model 3 using all of it's cameras to swerve off the road into a tree faster than the monitoring driver could react to, occurring just a few days back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frGoalySCns&ab_channel=SynGates (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frGoalySCns&ab_channel=SynGates).
Not sure how restful the nap will be . . . assuming you wake up.
This isn't specifically related to Tesla, they're just the company with the highest automated driving kill count so far. They've managed to defend themselves legally by having the self-driving automatically turn off when an accident seems imminent, and sternly warning in user agreements that Full Self Driving is never to be used to fully self drive the vehicle. Something that you're excited they appear soon to abandon.
I agree with you that there will never be zero vehicle deaths. That's why it will be interesting to see how legal liability is appointed when deaths occur. Does the owner relying on the software pay, does the company providing the software pay, does the programmer who worked on the software pay? I dunno, but it seems likely that any answer to that question will reduce profitability of a company doing self driving.
Please provide a link to the count of Tesla's "automated driving kill count". Lots of drivers claim to have been in an accident with FSD engaged only for Tesla to later prove FSD was not engaged, as the vehicle records all this data in real time. Accident rates are also impossible to come by and rely or "estimates" of total miles driven under FSD. Only Tesla has the receipts and their data shows accident rates far below national averages with cars operating FSD.
FSD Beta users have 0.31 accidents per 1 million miles, while Autopilot-enabled Teslas have 0.18 accidents per 1 million miles, compared to the industry average of 1.53 accidents per 1 million miles.
https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
I'm willing to concede that Tesla Beta users trend older and more affluent than the general driving public and that accounts for some of the difference, but that can't for such a large divergence. FSD avoiding accidents has to be part of this gap.
211 crashes were identified in which the frontal plane of the Tesla struck a vehicle or obstacle in its
path. This crash type includes the first responder crashes that prompted the original investigation.
When a driver is disengaged with the Tesla vehicle operating in Autopilot and the vehicle encounters
a circumstance outside of Autopilot’s object or event detection response capabilities (e.g., obstacle
detection and/or forward path planning), crash outcomes are often severe because neither the
system nor the driver reacts appropriately, resulting in high-speed differential and high energy crash
outcomes. The 211 crashes considered as part of this analysis resulted in 13 fatal crashes leading to
14 deaths and 49 injuries.
53 crashes were identified where Autosteer was in use in a lower traction environment, such as on
wet roads, where the vehicle lost traction and subsequently directional control, leading to a crash
where the first harmful event was road departure. In these low traction incidents, generally, the
vehicle almost immediately departs the lane after losing lane centering that often results in an impact
with a roadway barrier or other object.
Crashes with no or late evasive action attempted by the driver were found across all Tesla hardware versions and crash circumstances
My Tesla Model Y has been driving me around for the last 3 days on version 13.2.8. Conditions ranging from highway to city, day and night, sun to heavy rain, and construction zones. I've never been more confident in my Tesla investment. Version 13 is a dramatic improvement from version 12, which was a drastic improvement from prior versions. My car is essentially functioning as a robotaxi and driving me around like a passenger. The train is about to leave the station. Those parsing PE ratios will be left standing on the platform.Ha, to me, that sounds horrible. I fully engage as a driver. The idea of other drivers being carted around while they doomscroll is nightmare fuel.
This just reinforces my decision to stop riding street motorcycles over a decade ago.
Maybe I listened to Red Barchetta by Rush too many times
https://youtu.be/_LXKZq0fYDw?si=wrvKp0WqckmSccpm
Do you also enjoy sharing the road with drunk drivers, teen drivers, distracted drivers, impaired drivers, exhausted drivers, angry drivers, road raging drivers and suicidal drivers?
AEVs don't drive drunk, tired, angry, sad, distracted or impaired. My Tesla Model Y keeps all eight of its eyes on the road in all directions and all times and has a faster reaction time than me. I'm not much for doom scrolling, but I will gladly read a book, nap, eat a meal, type some emails, and generally repurpose monotonous driving time as productive time. Jeez, the more I think about it, this sounds horrible.
Tesla model 3 using all of it's cameras to swerve off the road into a tree faster than the monitoring driver could react to, occurring just a few days back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frGoalySCns&ab_channel=SynGates (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frGoalySCns&ab_channel=SynGates).
Not sure how restful the nap will be . . . assuming you wake up.
LOL, this is a fail. This has already been debunked. I literally posted the rebuttal. It's covered by the podcast link I posted just a few posts up today. Do yourself a favor and stop latching onto clickbait FUD news headlines. That entire article was based on the account of the driver. Any publication with journalistic standards would have waited for Tesla to release the accident report that shows the real time data collected by the vehicle, but that's not headline grabbing. That data showed the driver (most likely by accident) disengaged FSD several seconds before the car swerved. FSD was not responsible for this accident. The driver likely rubbed or provided resistance to the steering wheel or brushed the brake pedal. Either action automatically disengages FSD as a safety feature and requires the driver to take back control. If the driver was unaware he needed to take back control that explains how the car veered off the road unexpectedly. Human error that goes away once FSD become unsupervised and we remove pedals and the steering wheel.
Please, please do some research before blindly posting nonsense to this thread without applying any skepticism or critical thought.
There have also been multiple documented honesty issues with the company's statements regarding range, pricing, recall, FSD capabilities, availability, and spyware. With the pesky government out of the way, it's Tesla's word against... nobody. So without any independent facts, our discussions about this company can only boil down to a question of whether we trust what they say.I don't have the unshakable faith in Tesla telling me the truth that you do. They have every financial/monetary reason to lie, their CEO has dismantled the independent agencies who were investigating them, and they have some history of being uncooperative regarding releasing the crash data to independent regulators that only they have access to.My Tesla Model Y has been driving me around for the last 3 days on version 13.2.8. Conditions ranging from highway to city, day and night, sun to heavy rain, and construction zones. I've never been more confident in my Tesla investment. Version 13 is a dramatic improvement from version 12, which was a drastic improvement from prior versions. My car is essentially functioning as a robotaxi and driving me around like a passenger. The train is about to leave the station. Those parsing PE ratios will be left standing on the platform.Ha, to me, that sounds horrible. I fully engage as a driver. The idea of other drivers being carted around while they doomscroll is nightmare fuel.
This just reinforces my decision to stop riding street motorcycles over a decade ago.
Maybe I listened to Red Barchetta by Rush too many times
https://youtu.be/_LXKZq0fYDw?si=wrvKp0WqckmSccpm
Do you also enjoy sharing the road with drunk drivers, teen drivers, distracted drivers, impaired drivers, exhausted drivers, angry drivers, road raging drivers and suicidal drivers?
AEVs don't drive drunk, tired, angry, sad, distracted or impaired. My Tesla Model Y keeps all eight of its eyes on the road in all directions and all times and has a faster reaction time than me. I'm not much for doom scrolling, but I will gladly read a book, nap, eat a meal, type some emails, and generally repurpose monotonous driving time as productive time. Jeez, the more I think about it, this sounds horrible.
Tesla model 3 using all of it's cameras to swerve off the road into a tree faster than the monitoring driver could react to, occurring just a few days back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frGoalySCns&ab_channel=SynGates (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frGoalySCns&ab_channel=SynGates).
Not sure how restful the nap will be . . . assuming you wake up.
LOL, this is a fail. This has already been debunked. I literally posted the rebuttal. It's covered by the podcast link I posted just a few posts up today. Do yourself a favor and stop latching onto clickbait FUD news headlines. That entire article was based on the account of the driver. Any publication with journalistic standards would have waited for Tesla to release the accident report that shows the real time data collected by the vehicle, but that's not headline grabbing. That data showed the driver (most likely by accident) disengaged FSD several seconds before the car swerved. FSD was not responsible for this accident. The driver likely rubbed or provided resistance to the steering wheel or brushed the brake pedal. Either action automatically disengages FSD as a safety feature and requires the driver to take back control. If the driver was unaware he needed to take back control that explains how the car veered off the road unexpectedly. Human error that goes away once FSD become unsupervised and we remove pedals and the steering wheel.
Please, please do some research before blindly posting nonsense to this thread without applying any skepticism or critical thought.
Tesla can't win with this crowd. If Tesla didn't have remote driver oversight to start they'd be accused of being reckless and unsafe and taking uneccesaary risks to save a buck. Of course they are going to go slow at first. Just 10 vehicles, remote operators as needed, and a limited geographical footprint. Safety is a priority, but let's see how quickly things progress.
Comparing Waymo to Tesla in terms of geofencing is an apples to oranges comparison. Waymo is geofenced because their system requires detailed mapping of every street in the service area. You can't drive a Waymo outside of the geofence area. Conversely, Tesla is geofencing their Austin service area as a precautionary measure and picking geographically favorable conditions for the initial rollout. However, the same FSD that allows a Tesla to operate inside the Austin service area will work just as well anywhere in the country. My own experience here in Colorado proves that to my satisfaction.
Let me get this straight. Because you are not privy to Tesla's internal efforts on the autonomous ride hail permitting front, it means Tesla has no such efforts under way? Then you further extrapolate from there that this is a "clear indication" (LOL) that Tesla lacks confidence in its system. That is some pretzel logic.
The Trump admin recently established a national framework for regulating autonomous vehicles. How long before regulation of autonomy gets bumped up to the federal level the same way that we regulate safety belts, vehicle emissions and highway speed limits. It only makes sense to have a national standard. You won't to pretend Waymo having permits in a few extra cities at this stage is some sort of moat? Permitting is not going to protect the inferior solution that costs more to implement and way longer to roll out to new location through extensive mapping.
This isn't specifically related to Tesla, they're just the company with the highest automated driving kill count so far. They've managed to defend themselves legally by having the self-driving automatically turn off when an accident seems imminent, and sternly warning in user agreements that Full Self Driving is never to be used to fully self drive the vehicle. Something that you're excited they appear soon to abandon.
I agree with you that there will never be zero vehicle deaths. That's why it will be interesting to see how legal liability is appointed when deaths occur. Does the owner relying on the software pay, does the company providing the software pay, does the programmer who worked on the software pay? I dunno, but it seems likely that any answer to that question will reduce profitability of a company doing self driving.
Please provide a link to the count of Tesla's "automated driving kill count". Lots of drivers claim to have been in an accident with FSD engaged only for Tesla to later prove FSD was not engaged, as the vehicle records all this data in real time. Accident rates are also impossible to come by and rely or "estimates" of total miles driven under FSD. Only Tesla has the receipts and their data shows accident rates far below national averages with cars operating FSD.
FSD Beta users have 0.31 accidents per 1 million miles, while Autopilot-enabled Teslas have 0.18 accidents per 1 million miles, compared to the industry average of 1.53 accidents per 1 million miles.
https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
I'm willing to concede that Tesla Beta users trend older and more affluent than the general driving public and that accounts for some of the difference, but that can't for such a large divergence. FSD avoiding accidents has to be part of this gap.
I don't trust the person selling me a car to fairly tell me how safe the car they manufacture is on the roads. They have every reason to lie and obfuscate. I trust independent investigation by government regulators though.Quote211 crashes were identified in which the frontal plane of the Tesla struck a vehicle or obstacle in its
path. This crash type includes the first responder crashes that prompted the original investigation.
When a driver is disengaged with the Tesla vehicle operating in Autopilot and the vehicle encounters
a circumstance outside of Autopilot’s object or event detection response capabilities (e.g., obstacle
detection and/or forward path planning), crash outcomes are often severe because neither the
system nor the driver reacts appropriately, resulting in high-speed differential and high energy crash
outcomes. The 211 crashes considered as part of this analysis resulted in 13 fatal crashes leading to
14 deaths and 49 injuries.Quote53 crashes were identified where Autosteer was in use in a lower traction environment, such as on
wet roads, where the vehicle lost traction and subsequently directional control, leading to a crash
where the first harmful event was road departure. In these low traction incidents, generally, the
vehicle almost immediately departs the lane after losing lane centering that often results in an impact
with a roadway barrier or other object.QuoteCrashes with no or late evasive action attempted by the driver were found across all Tesla hardware versions and crash circumstances
- https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2022/INCR-EA22002-14496.pdf (https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2022/INCR-EA22002-14496.pdf)
There likely won't be any more recent reliable reports of Tesla crashes and safety, given that Musk laid off most of the agency that was investigating his company earlier this year.
My Tesla Model Y has been driving me around for the last 3 days on version 13.2.8. Conditions ranging from highway to city, day and night, sun to heavy rain, and construction zones. I've never been more confident in my Tesla investment. Version 13 is a dramatic improvement from version 12, which was a drastic improvement from prior versions. My car is essentially functioning as a robotaxi and driving me around like a passenger. The train is about to leave the station. Those parsing PE ratios will be left standing on the platform.Ha, to me, that sounds horrible. I fully engage as a driver. The idea of other drivers being carted around while they doomscroll is nightmare fuel.
This just reinforces my decision to stop riding street motorcycles over a decade ago.
Maybe I listened to Red Barchetta by Rush too many times
https://youtu.be/_LXKZq0fYDw?si=wrvKp0WqckmSccpm
Do you also enjoy sharing the road with drunk drivers, teen drivers, distracted drivers, impaired drivers, exhausted drivers, angry drivers, road raging drivers and suicidal drivers?
AEVs don't drive drunk, tired, angry, sad, distracted or impaired. My Tesla Model Y keeps all eight of its eyes on the road in all directions and all times and has a faster reaction time than me. I'm not much for doom scrolling, but I will gladly read a book, nap, eat a meal, type some emails, and generally repurpose monotonous driving time as productive time. Jeez, the more I think about it, this sounds horrible.
Tesla model 3 using all of it's cameras to swerve off the road into a tree faster than the monitoring driver could react to, occurring just a few days back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frGoalySCns&ab_channel=SynGates (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frGoalySCns&ab_channel=SynGates).
Not sure how restful the nap will be . . . assuming you wake up.
LOL, this is a fail. This has already been debunked. I literally posted the rebuttal. It's covered by the podcast link I posted just a few posts up today. Do yourself a favor and stop latching onto clickbait FUD news headlines. That entire article was based on the account of the driver. Any publication with journalistic standards would have waited for Tesla to release the accident report that shows the real time data collected by the vehicle, but that's not headline grabbing. That data showed the driver (most likely by accident) disengaged FSD several seconds before the car swerved. FSD was not responsible for this accident. The driver likely rubbed or provided resistance to the steering wheel or brushed the brake pedal. Either action automatically disengages FSD as a safety feature and requires the driver to take back control. If the driver was unaware he needed to take back control that explains how the car veered off the road unexpectedly. Human error that goes away once FSD become unsupervised and we remove pedals and the steering wheel.
Please, please do some research before blindly posting nonsense to this thread without applying any skepticism or critical thought.
I don't have the unshakable faith in Tesla telling me the truth that you do. They have every financial/monetary reason to lie, their CEO has dismantled the independent agencies who were investigating them, and they have some history of being uncooperative regarding releasing the crash data to independent regulators that only they have access to.
There have also been multiple documented honesty issues with the company's statements regarding range, pricing, recall, FSD capabilities, availability, and spyware. With the pesky government out of the way, it's Tesla's word against... nobody. So without any independent facts, our discussions about this company can only boil down to a question of whether we trust what they say.
"A Model S and Model X at this point can drive autonomously with greater safety than a person. Right now," the CEO told the Code Conference audience during a Q&A session following his interview with tech journalists Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher.
But the carmaker's lawyers pushed back.
Musk, "like many public figures, is the subject of many 'deepfake' videos and audio recordings that purport to show him saying and doing things he never actually said or did," they wrote in a court filing, going on to describe several fake videos of the billionaire.
This isn't specifically related to Tesla, they're just the company with the highest automated driving kill count so far. They've managed to defend themselves legally by having the self-driving automatically turn off when an accident seems imminent, and sternly warning in user agreements that Full Self Driving is never to be used to fully self drive the vehicle. Something that you're excited they appear soon to abandon.
I agree with you that there will never be zero vehicle deaths. That's why it will be interesting to see how legal liability is appointed when deaths occur. Does the owner relying on the software pay, does the company providing the software pay, does the programmer who worked on the software pay? I dunno, but it seems likely that any answer to that question will reduce profitability of a company doing self driving.
Please provide a link to the count of Tesla's "automated driving kill count". Lots of drivers claim to have been in an accident with FSD engaged only for Tesla to later prove FSD was not engaged, as the vehicle records all this data in real time. Accident rates are also impossible to come by and rely or "estimates" of total miles driven under FSD. Only Tesla has the receipts and their data shows accident rates far below national averages with cars operating FSD.
FSD Beta users have 0.31 accidents per 1 million miles, while Autopilot-enabled Teslas have 0.18 accidents per 1 million miles, compared to the industry average of 1.53 accidents per 1 million miles.
https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
I'm willing to concede that Tesla Beta users trend older and more affluent than the general driving public and that accounts for some of the difference, but that can't for such a large divergence. FSD avoiding accidents has to be part of this gap.
I don't trust the person selling me a car to fairly tell me how safe the car they manufacture is on the roads. They have every reason to lie and obfuscate. I trust independent investigation by government regulators though.Quote211 crashes were identified in which the frontal plane of the Tesla struck a vehicle or obstacle in its
path. This crash type includes the first responder crashes that prompted the original investigation.
When a driver is disengaged with the Tesla vehicle operating in Autopilot and the vehicle encounters
a circumstance outside of Autopilot’s object or event detection response capabilities (e.g., obstacle
detection and/or forward path planning), crash outcomes are often severe because neither the
system nor the driver reacts appropriately, resulting in high-speed differential and high energy crash
outcomes. The 211 crashes considered as part of this analysis resulted in 13 fatal crashes leading to
14 deaths and 49 injuries.Quote53 crashes were identified where Autosteer was in use in a lower traction environment, such as on
wet roads, where the vehicle lost traction and subsequently directional control, leading to a crash
where the first harmful event was road departure. In these low traction incidents, generally, the
vehicle almost immediately departs the lane after losing lane centering that often results in an impact
with a roadway barrier or other object.QuoteCrashes with no or late evasive action attempted by the driver were found across all Tesla hardware versions and crash circumstances
- https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2022/INCR-EA22002-14496.pdf (https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2022/INCR-EA22002-14496.pdf)
There likely won't be any more recent reliable reports of Tesla crashes and safety, given that Musk laid off most of the agency that was investigating his company earlier this year.
Well, if your argument relies on "Tesla must be lying" I don't know that there's much use carrying on the debate. Do you have a link to these FSD death statistics you're trusting? You're going to trust stats that don't come from actual data recorded by the car in real time, but rather wild guesses and extrapolations of number of miles driven under FSD and what accidents actually occurred when FSD was engaged?
The quotes you provide are pretty absurd frankly. Incidents where FSD might have been deployed based on the type of collision were identified? Same accidents where FSD might have been engaged resulted in XX number of deaths. You gotta be kidding. Was the car actually using FSD? Was the driver following the rules of FSD and providing supervision (the same way someone using cruise control needs to provide supervision)? If the vehicle was using FSD, what version? A few months is ancient history when it comes to Tesla's FSD progression. The parked emergency vehicle thing was a real issue, but was addressed a ways back and is no longer an issue for versions 12 and 13 of FSD.
You really need to stop spreading this FUD if this is all the "facts" you have to support your position and you are willing to ignore actual data runs counter to your bias.
FSD Beta users have 0.31 accidents per 1 million miles, while Autopilot-enabled Teslas have 0.18 accidents per 1 million miles, compared to the industry average of 1.53 accidents per 1 million miles.
On average in these crashes, Autopilot aborted vehicle control less than one second prior to the
first impact
The highest serious valuation I could find was from Morningstar. While they use a DCF model and 5 year time-frame, they assign a very high uncertainty level, which is no surprise. Grok gives a range of $49.43 and $250, with a large number similar to @NorCal 's calculation. I think we can all agree that the electric car company is not, alone, worth the current price.
Below are Morningstar's valuation thermometer, as well as their Bulls Say / Bears Say summary. At $250 a share, this would be a tidy 100% profit from last year's levels. The range of possible values they calculate shows, at the very least, the continued volatility a Tesla investor should expect. As NorCal says, like an early stage company.
I agree, it does sound horrible.My Tesla Model Y has been driving me around for the last 3 days on version 13.2.8. Conditions ranging from highway to city, day and night, sun to heavy rain, and construction zones. I've never been more confident in my Tesla investment. Version 13 is a dramatic improvement from version 12, which was a drastic improvement from prior versions. My car is essentially functioning as a robotaxi and driving me around like a passenger. The train is about to leave the station. Those parsing PE ratios will be left standing on the platform.Ha, to me, that sounds horrible. I fully engage as a driver. The idea of other drivers being carted around while they doomscroll is nightmare fuel.
This just reinforces my decision to stop riding street motorcycles over a decade ago.
Maybe I listened to Red Barchetta by Rush too many times
https://youtu.be/_LXKZq0fYDw?si=wrvKp0WqckmSccpm
Do you also enjoy sharing the road with drunk drivers, teen drivers, distracted drivers, impaired drivers, exhausted drivers, angry drivers, road raging drivers and suicidal drivers?
AEVs don't drive drunk, tired, angry, sad, distracted or impaired. My Tesla Model Y keeps all eight of its eyes on the road in all directions and all times and has a faster reaction time than me. I'm not much for doom scrolling, but I will gladly read a book, nap, eat a meal, type some emails, and generally repurpose monotonous driving time as productive time. Jeez, the more I think about it, this sounds horrible.
The highest serious valuation I could find was from Morningstar. While they use a DCF model and 5 year time-frame, they assign a very high uncertainty level, which is no surprise. Grok gives a range of $49.43 and $250, with a large number similar to @NorCal 's calculation. I think we can all agree that the electric car company is not, alone, worth the current price.
Below are Morningstar's valuation thermometer, as well as their Bulls Say / Bears Say summary. At $250 a share, this would be a tidy 100% profit from last year's levels. The range of possible values they calculate shows, at the very least, the continued volatility a Tesla investor should expect. As NorCal says, like an early stage company.
i think the bolded is the crux of the valuation issue, Tesla is not a electric car company, they are a technology or really an AI company that currently sells cars, solar panels, and batteries. They will sell FSD, robo taxi and optimus robots, and tractor trailer trucks and who knows what else. when i hear valuation discussions on Tesla its always the value of FSD for the industry and the potential of the optimus robots which will be massive in very short order.
I think what gets lost is how fast everything is improving, AI software and chips both get 3-4x better per year independently so 10x better per year combined, compounded over 5+ years we are in the 100k to 1 million times better range, i can't fathom what that means for 2030. Its almost impossible to guess what the impact to our portfolios, retirements, and jobs may be in just a few short years.
Considering the above and this short time frame of 5 years why not consider other investment options beyond the sp500, like technology companies at forefront of these technologies AI. Nvidia is up ~1000% in the last 2.5 years, Palantir is up more than that and 400% in the last year. Tesla has more training data than anyone in this space with the same access to chips and software.
i think the bolded is the crux of the valuation issue, Tesla is not a electric car company, they are a technology or really an AI company that currently sells cars, solar panels, and batteries. They will sell FSD, robo taxi and optimus robots, and tractor trailer trucks and who knows what else. when i hear valuation discussions on Tesla its always the value of FSD for the industry and the potential of the optimus robots which will be massive in very short order.
I think what gets lost is how fast everything is improving, AI software and chips both get 3-4x better per year independently so 10x better per year combined, compounded over 5+ years we are in the 100k to 1 million times better range, i can't fathom what that means for 2030. Its almost impossible to guess what the impact to our portfolios, retirements, and jobs may be in just a few short years.
Considering the above and this short time frame of 5 years why not consider other investment options beyond the sp500, like technology companies at forefront of these technologies AI. Nvidia is up ~1000% in the last 2.5 years, Palantir is up more than that and 400% in the last year. Tesla has more training data than anyone in this space with the same access to chips and software.
So what I heard was to buy BYD.
The highest serious valuation I could find was from Morningstar. While they use a DCF model and 5 year time-frame, they assign a very high uncertainty level, which is no surprise. Grok gives a range of $49.43 and $250, with a large number similar to @NorCal 's calculation. I think we can all agree that the electric car company is not, alone, worth the current price.
Below are Morningstar's valuation thermometer, as well as their Bulls Say / Bears Say summary. At $250 a share, this would be a tidy 100% profit from last year's levels. The range of possible values they calculate shows, at the very least, the continued volatility a Tesla investor should expect. As NorCal says, like an early stage company.
I had Perplexity create a DCF value. Result was $16.75/share. I don't know how valid that is, but that's what it spit out.
The only thing that I can think of that makes this stock pump year over year is that the market seems to think Tesla is a tech company that just so happens to make cars and not vice versa. If any other car maker had these financials they would not be at this insane of a P.E. ratio.But as the revenue to income map above shows, Tesla is indeed a car company that just so happens to make tech.
The only thing that I can think of that makes this stock pump year over year is that the market seems to think Tesla is a tech company that just so happens to make cars and not vice versa. If any other car maker had these financials they would not be at this insane of a P.E. ratio.But as the revenue to income map above shows, Tesla is indeed a car company that just so happens to make tech.
I think Optimus will take a lot longer to sell than Musk thinks. There will be rich, early adopters who just want a robot... but then what? Liberals tend to score higher on "openness to experience", which is what you need to try out an AI robot. But Musk has aligned himself closely with Trump, alienating himself from that customer base.There’s a reason most robots sold today look nothing like a human body. That reason is that we have plenty of human bodies - billions of them, and if you hire them to do a task you can just pay them by the hour rather than making a large upfront investment in purchasing a thing (or various lease agreements in which this cost is factored in).
There's a book about innovative products called "Crossing the Chasm", which talks about the wide gap between early adopters and the mainstream customer. I think Optimus could easily fall into that chasm.
I think Optimus will take a lot longer to sell than Musk thinks. There will be rich, early adopters who just want a robot... but then what? Liberals tend to score higher on "openness to experience", which is what you need to try out an AI robot. But Musk has aligned himself closely with Trump, alienating himself from that customer base.that chasm.
I think Optimus will take a lot longer to sell than Musk thinks. There will be rich, early adopters who just want a robot... but then what? Liberals tend to score higher on "openness to experience", which is what you need to try out an AI robot. But Musk has aligned himself closely with Trump, alienating himself from that customer base.that chasm.
I think so too, but for different reasons. Musk said that initially optimus would be targeted towards industrial customers, who would put the robot to work doing boring repetitive tasks on assembly lines and such. But you don't need a generalized humanoid robot for that type of work. For example, if the robot is on wheels it is more stable, uses less power, simpler, and cheaper. And why two arms? Why not four? If something is repetitive, you want specialized, not generalized.
Later, Musk says optimus will be rolled out for home use. Now, there's where a generalized humanoid robot might make some sense. You have a bunch of different tasks in an environmental designed for humans. Folding laundry, washing dishes, etc. But those tasks aren't so time intensive for me that I need a $30K robot. I could hire someone to come in a couple times a week and be just as convenient.
Honda’s Asimo humanoid robot from a decade ago was arguably more advanced than Tesla’s remote controlled Optimus, as it could autonomously respond to various cues. Still, it failed to find a market. This suggests to me that Optimus is more about generating sci fi excitement for the stock price than meeting any particular market need. It reminds me of The Boring Company.
Anybody who hasn't taken a ride in a Tesla vehicle using version 13 FSD really shouldn't be commenting on Tesla's investment merits. Anybody, in the face of all the above reality that still wants to think of Tesla as only a car company is being obtuse or is ignorant to reality.
I think Optimus will take a lot longer to sell than Musk thinks. There will be rich, early adopters who just want a robot... but then what? Liberals tend to score higher on "openness to experience", which is what you need to try out an AI robot. But Musk has aligned himself closely with Trump, alienating himself from that customer base.that chasm.
I think so too, but for different reasons. Musk said that initially optimus would be targeted towards industrial customers, who would put the robot to work doing boring repetitive tasks on assembly lines and such. But you don't need a generalized humanoid robot for that type of work. For example, if the robot is on wheels it is more stable, uses less power, simpler, and cheaper. And why two arms? Why not four? If something is repetitive, you want specialized, not generalized.
Later, Musk says optimus will be rolled out for home use. Now, there's where a generalized humanoid robot might make some sense. You have a bunch of different tasks in an environmental designed for humans. Folding laundry, washing dishes, etc. But those tasks aren't so time intensive for me that I need a $30K robot. I could hire someone to come in a couple times a week and be just as convenient.
I think Optimus will take a lot longer to sell than Musk thinks. There will be rich, early adopters who just want a robot... but then what? Liberals tend to score higher on "openness to experience", which is what you need to try out an AI robot. But Musk has aligned himself closely with Trump, alienating himself from that customer base.that chasm.
I think so too, but for different reasons. Musk said that initially optimus would be targeted towards industrial customers, who would put the robot to work doing boring repetitive tasks on assembly lines and such. But you don't need a generalized humanoid robot for that type of work. For example, if the robot is on wheels it is more stable, uses less power, simpler, and cheaper. And why two arms? Why not four? If something is repetitive, you want specialized, not generalized.
Later, Musk says optimus will be rolled out for home use. Now, there's where a generalized humanoid robot might make some sense. You have a bunch of different tasks in an environmental designed for humans. Folding laundry, washing dishes, etc. But those tasks aren't so time intensive for me that I need a $30K robot. I could hire someone to come in a couple times a week and be just as convenient.
Presumably, if their is a job on a factory line being done by a human currently, instead of a specialized robot, to complete a repetitive task (i.e., refilling or stocking components into a larger machine) the company would have already replaced the human. Replacing those humans on the line with a humanoid robot is a no brainer. The humanoid robot doesn't need sleep, doesn't receive pay or benefits, doesn't get sick, or need periodic replacement with a new human that has to be be trained. Robots don't need a break room or take breaks and don't need HR meetings. Additional training is uploaded in seconds. The cost of of a $30k humanoid robot working a factory line would be recouped in under a year in savings. According to Grok a conservative estimate for the number of factory workers engaged in basic manufacturing world wide is 300 million.
Then there is a whole slew of new labor uses we will find for humanoid robots once labor becomes so cheap compared to human labor. Would an apartment building or hotel in the city hire a doorman to man their door/lobby 24/7? Only in the most upscale apartments now. But, what if an Optimus could do the job of opening doors for a fraction of the cost over a five year period. Conservatively, the human doorman costs over $750k for 5 years by way of uniforms, training, paid holidays, sick days, salary, and a basic healthcare plan. The Optimus robot will cost under $50k for the same period factoring initial purchase cost, electricity cost, and some maintenance and repair costs. That cost will go lower over time with economies of scale lowering the costs of the robots. This is just one of 100s of example where a lower cost for labor will create new jobs and uses that can only be filled by a humanoid robot and its cost structure.
There's a lot of narrow minded thinking that cannot or refuses to grasp the level of disruption about to be unleashed on the world.
Anybody who hasn't taken a ride in a Tesla vehicle using version 13 FSD really shouldn't be commenting on Tesla's investment merits. Anybody, in the face of all the above reality that still wants to think of Tesla as only a car company is being obtuse or is ignorant to reality.
You are confusing the product with the investment case. Having a great product doesn't guarantee a great investment. Gigcasting is great, but at some point you still need to sell cars. Tesla's sales in Q1 were 336,681. That's the lowest number since Q2 of 2022. The F-150 Lightning is outselling the Cybertruck. Venerable GM now has 15% of US EV sales.
I think Optimus will take a lot longer to sell than Musk thinks. There will be rich, early adopters who just want a robot... but then what? Liberals tend to score higher on "openness to experience", which is what you need to try out an AI robot. But Musk has aligned himself closely with Trump, alienating himself from that customer base.that chasm.
I think so too, but for different reasons. Musk said that initially optimus would be targeted towards industrial customers, who would put the robot to work doing boring repetitive tasks on assembly lines and such. But you don't need a generalized humanoid robot for that type of work. For example, if the robot is on wheels it is more stable, uses less power, simpler, and cheaper. And why two arms? Why not four? If something is repetitive, you want specialized, not generalized.
Later, Musk says optimus will be rolled out for home use. Now, there's where a generalized humanoid robot might make some sense. You have a bunch of different tasks in an environmental designed for humans. Folding laundry, washing dishes, etc. But those tasks aren't so time intensive for me that I need a $30K robot. I could hire someone to come in a couple times a week and be just as convenient.
Presumably, if their is a job on a factory line being done by a human currently, instead of a specialized robot, to complete a repetitive task (i.e., refilling or stocking components into a larger machine) the company would have already replaced the human. Replacing those humans on the line with a humanoid robot is a no brainer. The humanoid robot doesn't need sleep, doesn't receive pay or benefits, doesn't get sick, or need periodic replacement with a new human that has to be be trained. Robots don't need a break room or take breaks and don't need HR meetings. Additional training is uploaded in seconds. The cost of of a $30k humanoid robot working a factory line would be recouped in under a year in savings. According to Grok a conservative estimate for the number of factory workers engaged in basic manufacturing world wide is 300 million.
Then there is a whole slew of new labor uses we will find for humanoid robots once labor becomes so cheap compared to human labor. Would an apartment building or hotel in the city hire a doorman to man their door/lobby 24/7? Only in the most upscale apartments now. But, what if an Optimus could do the job of opening doors for a fraction of the cost over a five year period. Conservatively, the human doorman costs over $750k for 5 years by way of uniforms, training, paid holidays, sick days, salary, and a basic healthcare plan. The Optimus robot will cost under $50k for the same period factoring initial purchase cost, electricity cost, and some maintenance and repair costs. That cost will go lower over time with economies of scale lowering the costs of the robots. This is just one of 100s of example where a lower cost for labor will create new jobs and uses that can only be filled by a humanoid robot and its cost structure.
There's a lot of narrow minded thinking that cannot or refuses to grasp the level of disruption about to be unleashed on the world.
See, your doorman example is a great one against use of robots.
It costs a couple hundred dollars to install an automatic door opener with a scanning keycard. Let's get crazy and say 5,000$ all in. Automating this task can be done much, much, much easier than having a doorman.
But why do doormen exist at all? It's not really to open doors. They're there partly as a 'look how rich we are, we can hire a dude just to stand there and look pretty' flex, partly do to random general tasks - call a taxi, carry boxes, act as security (checking if people are tailgating when residents enter), sign for/accept packages for guests, answer information queries, general cleaning if the weather outside is poor and the entrance-way gets wet and needs to be mopped. I don't think Optimus would fill this use case very well at all.
Anybody who hasn't taken a ride in a Tesla vehicle using version 13 FSD really shouldn't be commenting on Tesla's investment merits.
Anybody who hasn't taken a ride in a Tesla vehicle using version 13 FSD really shouldn't be commenting on Tesla's investment merits. Anybody, in the face of all the above reality that still wants to think of Tesla as only a car company is being obtuse or is ignorant to reality. Anybody that has been wrong about Tesla's merits as an investment for over a decade really should stop commenting as well IMO, but I know that won't happen.
If someone thinks that Tesla isn't a car company, then why are they still building cars? Why add a 5% margin business to your 85% margin AI business? (Or, even 15% margin in its heyday) Apple finally realized this when they launched the iPhone.
I get Elon will do his own thing, but if my investment thesis was all these future things, and I was a serious investor, I would be pounding the table for Elon to push off all the "mechanical" stuff to Foxconn or Magna or somebody. You can't say they want to own it because they execute at a quality level unattainable elsewhere.
Liberals tend to score higher on "openness to experience", which is what you need to try out an AI robot.
If someone thinks that Tesla isn't a car company, then why are they still building cars? Why add a 5% margin business to your 85% margin AI business? (Or, even 15% margin in its heyday) Apple finally realized this when they launched the iPhone.
I get Elon will do his own thing, but if my investment thesis was all these future things, and I was a serious investor, I would be pounding the table for Elon to push off all the "mechanical" stuff to Foxconn or Magna or somebody. You can't say they want to own it because they execute at a quality level unattainable elsewhere.
Cars on the road provides training data. Insidious telematics, too.
Anybody who hasn't taken a ride in a Tesla vehicle using version 13 FSD really shouldn't be commenting on Tesla's investment merits.
I took a Cyber truck on a test drive recently, i have wanted one for a long time and put a deposit down but never purchased one as they were $80k after the foundation models came out, much more than the originally advertised price. I do own a 2022 ram 1500, compared to the cyber truck its an antique, the air ride is sooooo much nicer. The technology is crazy amazing. We demo-ed FSD, it was awesome, kept pace with traffic, slowed down to avoid jay-walker, it even showed the person on the screen. It actually startled me when it made a lane change, i grabbed the steering wheel to get back in my lane and FSD turned off automatically. it can park itself, and i saw another person use summon at a grocery store which was pretty wild. If i wanted/needed a truck today i would get one, hands down, but i already own my ram outright. Maybe a used one in a few years
i know this may surprise the mustashians here but while at the dealership getting an oil change a saw that a new 2025 Ram with leather seats is now $80k, same price as a Cyber truck. Granted the truck was marked down about $15k to $65k but this astronomical price point isnt out of the range of other manufacturers for similar vehicles.
Anybody who hasn't taken a ride in a Tesla vehicle using version 13 FSD really shouldn't be commenting on Tesla's investment merits. Anybody, in the face of all the above reality that still wants to think of Tesla as only a car company is being obtuse or is ignorant to reality. Anybody that has been wrong about Tesla's merits as an investment for over a decade really should stop commenting as well IMO, but I know that won't happen.
This is the key thing to realize here. The guys on here with positions in Tesla are trading on material non public information. We are all driving the software and seeing what it is capable of and how fast it is developing. Only a very small fraction of the American population has had a chance to do this (Maybe 2%?) I would take this first hand information over 1000 stories from the media.
@ColoradoTribe : When do you think V14 rolls out to the public?
I think Optimus will take a lot longer to sell than Musk thinks. There will be rich, early adopters who just want a robot... but then what? Liberals tend to score higher on "openness to experience", which is what you need to try out an AI robot. But Musk has aligned himself closely with Trump, alienating himself from that customer base.There’s a reason most robots sold today look nothing like a human body. That reason is that we have plenty of human bodies - billions of them, and if you hire them to do a task you can just pay them by the hour rather than making a large upfront investment in purchasing a thing (or various lease agreements in which this cost is factored in).
There's a book about innovative products called "Crossing the Chasm", which talks about the wide gap between early adopters and the mainstream customer. I think Optimus could easily fall into that chasm.
The bestselling robots today are things like 12 foot arms that make spot welds, forklift-like robots, robots that fit inside pipes, and airborne drones. In other words, things with a radically different form factor than the human body.
Honda’s Asimo humanoid robot from a decade ago was arguably more advanced than Tesla’s remote controlled Optimus, as it could autonomously respond to various cues. Still, it failed to find a market. This suggests to me that Optimus is more about generating sci fi excitement for the stock price than meeting any particular market need. It reminds me of The Boring Company.
Presumably, if their is a job on a factory line being done by a human currently, instead of a specialized robot, to complete a repetitive task (i.e., refilling or stocking components into a larger machine) the company would have already replaced the human. Replacing those humans on the line with a humanoid robot is a no brainer.
Cybertruck outsold F-150 in 2024. More importantly, Tesla made a profit on its Cybertruck sales and Ford lost billions on its EVs including a loss on every F-150 Lightning sold. Gigacastings are not a consumer product, but hey are just one example of what makes Tesla vehicles a superior product, innovative and Tesla one of only two profitable EV makers in the world.
I think Optimus will take a lot longer to sell than Musk thinks. There will be rich, early adopters who just want a robot... but then what? Liberals tend to score higher on "openness to experience", which is what you need to try out an AI robot. But Musk has aligned himself closely with Trump, alienating himself from that customer base.There’s a reason most robots sold today look nothing like a human body. That reason is that we have plenty of human bodies - billions of them, and if you hire them to do a task you can just pay them by the hour rather than making a large upfront investment in purchasing a thing (or various lease agreements in which this cost is factored in).
There's a book about innovative products called "Crossing the Chasm", which talks about the wide gap between early adopters and the mainstream customer. I think Optimus could easily fall into that chasm.
The bestselling robots today are things like 12 foot arms that make spot welds, forklift-like robots, robots that fit inside pipes, and airborne drones. In other words, things with a radically different form factor than the human body.
Honda’s Asimo humanoid robot from a decade ago was arguably more advanced than Tesla’s remote controlled Optimus, as it could autonomously respond to various cues. Still, it failed to find a market. This suggests to me that Optimus is more about generating sci fi excitement for the stock price than meeting any particular market need. It reminds me of The Boring Company.
Agreed - robots are already present in manufacturing and other places where a humanoid robot wouldn't be efficient. Tesla's general robot will struggle to compete with specialized industrial robots.
According to this Tesla stock analyst, Optimus robots are already used by Tesla in its manufacturing. Reading between the lines, it sounds like this analyst thinks Tesla could build up AI capability through experience with Optimus - perhaps helping some other products. I don't see any discussion of humanoid robot sales.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/analyst-revisits-tesla-stock-price-114110040.html
Presumably, if their is a job on a factory line being done by a human currently, instead of a specialized robot, to complete a repetitive task (i.e., refilling or stocking components into a larger machine) the company would have already replaced the human. Replacing those humans on the line with a humanoid robot is a no brainer.
The first part is correct. The reason they haven't been replaced is there are lots of jobs robots aren't good at. Robots are bad at jobs requiring tactile information or fine motor control, for example. This is why shoe making still requires lots of human labor for instance. The second part is wrong. If you could figure out how a robot could make shoes, it wouldn't have to be humanoid. It could look like anything you want. One thing you definitely would not do is make it bipedal because of the higher operational costs and shorter duty cycle. Turns out it actually is a brainer.Cybertruck outsold F-150 in 2024. More importantly, Tesla made a profit on its Cybertruck sales and Ford lost billions on its EVs including a loss on every F-150 Lightning sold. Gigacastings are not a consumer product, but hey are just one example of what makes Tesla vehicles a superior product, innovative and Tesla one of only two profitable EV makers in the world.
Hold up there. This is an investing discussion. Let's use terms correctly. Tesla had positive gross margins on the Cybertruck. You know what is not included in the gross margin? The R&D, design, and sales costs, and the cost of building the Giga factory. Tesla is not making a profit on the Cybertruck. Which by the way, is not necessarily a bad thing. You wouldn't reasonably assume a new product line is profitable immediately. Tesla itself wasn't profitable for years.
Anyway my point wasn't about comparing Ford and Tesla. It was about Tesla losing both sales and market share in the US. Losing margin too, by the way.
But let's make the bull case for Tesla. Tesla's EPS has grown on average of 14.20% over the last three years. If it were to continue that same growth rate for the next 12 years it would have an EPS of $9.79 by 2037. If the stock price remained exactly the same for the next 12 years, the P/E would be 35. Which is currently higher than Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Meta, and Google. That's a heavy lift. And of course, the EPS is falling dramatically. We have to use some very generous assumptions to come up with a scenario where Tesla is still very expensive in 12 years.
The part that keeps getting lost is you can argue that Tesla is a perfectly wonderful company. But that doesn't make it a perfectly wonderful investment. That's the question in the title of this thread.
Manufacturing volume tend to go along with more optimized/lower maintenance designs. I've worked with research instruments that are essentially had build by skilled techs, limited run goods (say a thermocycler, or a precision four row air planter), and super widely produced items (cars, laptop computers, phones). Bigger production runs both means it makes sense to spend more time identifying and reducing potential failure/maintenance issues and that, with large number of devices out in the world, over time, you have more chances to identify what the actual failure and maintenance issues are that need to be addressed.You're getting into very important points. The thing that seems to sell cars is looks that give an impression of coolness, sexiness, strength, etc. Ask the people signing up for 7 year leases on pretty trucks. They thought it looked cool. They liked the facade redesign. They thought it would get them respect.
In the hypothetical world were any company had a low-ish cost robot capable of bagging groceries AND they were able to sell hundreds of thousands of those robots, I suspect that over time the maintenance requirements would look more like that of a car* than of a piece of research equipment or industrial automation. I certainly hope it'd look more like a car than like a cell phone/laptop where if anything serious breaks many people just throw it away and replace it.
*Regular periodic maintenance, occasional expensive repairs at a local shop with specialized mechanics when something breaks/wears out or when it experienced the robotic equivalent of being rear-ended or sideswiped.
I suppose the case for Optimus rests on the assumption that people will buy humanoid robots for the same reasons they buy brand new cars. A specialist robot like the arms that weld car bodies together or the pucks that vacuums floors will always be cheaper to do any specific function, but the AI integration would supposedly make it possible for a general robot to go from welding to bagging groceries to helping nursing home patients to vacuuming the cat hair.
The robot taxi shouldn't cost _more_ than a current model 3, it doesn't have any extra sensors or equipment. So that should be less than $35,000/car (that's sale price, some of that is profit, most is cost of goods), while the hardware for each Waymo is estimated to be a couple of hundred thousand dollars. An even modestly less capable automated ride hailing service -- assuming it is "good enough", waiting to see if this is true for Tesla's solution or not -- might be able to undercut Waymo on price or improve on quality of service by having a higher density of cars available if each cost costs 1/7th as much.
TL;DR: consider quality per unit cost, not just absolute quality
I'm not talking software. I'm talking about fit and finish. Panel gaps, trim falling off, that sort of thing. Magna is not well-known outside the industry, but is the Foxconn of cars. And, Foxconn itself wants to get into building cars. The maximizing profit, nimble answer would be to outsource that kind of work.
The robot taxi shouldn't cost _more_ than a current model 3, it doesn't have any extra sensors or equipment. So that should be less than $35,000/car (that's sale price, some of that is profit, most is cost of goods), while the hardware for each Waymo is estimated to be a couple of hundred thousand dollars. An even modestly less capable automated ride hailing service -- assuming it is "good enough", waiting to see if this is true for Tesla's solution or not -- might be able to undercut Waymo on price or improve on quality of service by having a higher density of cars available if each cost costs 1/7th as much.
TL;DR: consider quality per unit cost, not just absolute quality
FWIW, I just stumbled on this Bloomberg article that estimates Waymo's sensor suite cost at $9300.
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2025-tesla-full-self-driving-crash/
Even if you can make a humanoid robot that can bag groceries, it's going to cost a heck of a lot more than a teenager, though, right? I build and maintain machines that are many orders of magnitude simpler (bicycles) and they still require quite a bit of work to keep running well. I can't even imagine the maintenance challenges involved with, say, a robot hand capable of handling a ripe tomato or something. Let alone the rest of the robot.
From an engineering standpoint, the likelihood seems really high that a hyper-complex device interacting with humans IRL is going to get damaged a lot. And in an industrial setting that's more controlled, there's not much reason for the humanoid form as others have already pointed out.
It's probably irrelevant regardless for quite a while. There's no evidence that Tesla has anything approaching a robot that can bag groceries, teleoperated drink-service notwithstanding.
Manufacturing volume tend to go along with more optimized/lower maintenance designs. I've worked with research instruments that are essentially had build by skilled techs, limited run goods (say a thermocycler, or a precision four row air planter), and super widely produced items (cars, laptop computers, phones). Bigger production runs both means it makes sense to spend more time identifying and reducing potential failure/maintenance issues and that, with large number of devices out in the world, over time, you have more chances to identify what the actual failure and maintenance issues are that need to be addressed.You're getting into very important points. The thing that seems to sell cars is looks that give an impression of coolness, sexiness, strength, etc. Ask the people signing up for 7 year leases on pretty trucks. They thought it looked cool. They liked the facade redesign. They thought it would get them respect.
In the hypothetical world were any company had a low-ish cost robot capable of bagging groceries AND they were able to sell hundreds of thousands of those robots, I suspect that over time the maintenance requirements would look more like that of a car* than of a piece of research equipment or industrial automation. I certainly hope it'd look more like a car than like a cell phone/laptop where if anything serious breaks many people just throw it away and replace it.
*Regular periodic maintenance, occasional expensive repairs at a local shop with specialized mechanics when something breaks/wears out or when it experienced the robotic equivalent of being rear-ended or sideswiped.
Will something similar apply to $30,000 AI-driven robot-people marketed to the masses? Or will the "general" robot market be dominated by the question "is it profitable to use?" the way the specialist robot market already is?
I suppose the case for Optimus rests on the assumption that people will buy humanoid robots for the same reasons they buy brand new cars. A specialist robot like the arms that weld car bodies together or the pucks that vacuums floors will always be cheaper to do any specific function, but the AI integration would supposedly make it possible for a general robot to go from welding to bagging groceries to helping nursing home patients to vacuuming the cat hair.
Then we must assume that all those joints, servos, motors, cameras, sensors, processors, batteries, hydraulic systems, etc. are durable and low-maintenance enough so that the robot can earn back its cost over a period of perhaps decades. And the long-term energy bill needs to be evaluated too. What are we looking at? 500 watts just to stand there? These machines would need to be produced to an extraordinary quality level to financially justify themselves... unless they are bought as vanity products, in which case they can be as disposable as a modern Audi SUV or set of chrome pretty truck rims.
Yet, I'm also missing their surveillance value. The reason you can buy a 65" 4K television for under $400 is because the TV is spying on you, sending advertisers information about what you're watching so that ads can be targeted to your specific demographics and interests. Perhaps your robot will be similarly discounted, but will steer you toward purchases, advertisements, fake news sources, or subscription upgrades. Perhaps we'll accept ad-subsidized robots in our lives the same way we accept it from our TVs and phones?
So while I don't know which way the economics would actually work out in this particular scenario (and I also don't know if the generalizable humanoid robot is going to be possible to create and/or manufacture at scale), I think it is at least conceptually possible for a more complex general purpose robot that can do 500 different tasks and is manufactured on a massive scale might end up being cheaper for end users than designing 500 different simpler specialized robots, each with much more limited production runs where the costs of both R&D and capital investments like building assembly lines need to be spread out over fewer units.
The robot taxi shouldn't cost _more_ than a current model 3, it doesn't have any extra sensors or equipment. So that should be less than $35,000/car (that's sale price, some of that is profit, most is cost of goods), while the hardware for each Waymo is estimated to be a couple of hundred thousand dollars. An even modestly less capable automated ride hailing service -- assuming it is "good enough", waiting to see if this is true for Tesla's solution or not -- might be able to undercut Waymo on price or improve on quality of service by having a higher density of cars available if each cost costs 1/7th as much.
TL;DR: consider quality per unit cost, not just absolute quality
FWIW, I just stumbled on this Bloomberg article that estimates Waymo's sensor suite cost at $9300.
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2025-tesla-full-self-driving-crash/
The estimate I was going off of was a quote from Dmitri Dolgov, Waymo’s co-chief executive, that the cost of all the equipment they have to add to a Jaguar I-Pace to turn it into a Waymo taxi is on the order $100,000 (that's not only sensors but electronics, wiring, computers, etc).* The cost of the base car itself is the order of $75,000. Plus the labor of retrofitting which is high right now but would likely come down at scale, or if/when google launches a car designed from the ground up to serve as a robotaxi.
*The quote was in a new york times article last September but it traces back to a podcast from February, so costs have doubtless come down somewhat in the last 16 months. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/04/technology/waymo-expansion-alphabet.html
So while I don't know which way the economics would actually work out in this particular scenario (and I also don't know if the generalizable humanoid robot is going to be possible to create and/or manufacture at scale), I think it is at least conceptually possible for a more complex general purpose robot that can do 500 different tasks and is manufactured on a massive scale might end up being cheaper for end users than designing 500 different simpler specialized robots, each with much more limited production runs where the costs of both R&D and capital investments like building assembly lines need to be spread out over fewer units.
There is a lot of merit to this line of thinking. One of the great tech business innovations was Texas Instruments decision to mass produce chips. Previously, they would produce enough chips to meet a single customer's order, so the cost had to be amortized over a small number of chips. But they decided to try just pumping them out, and as the price went way down, people starting finding new ways to use the chips. So they induced their own market demand.
Certainly if general purpose robots were cheap enough people would start finding things for them to do. But we're aways off, I think. Humanoid robots have about a 1-2 hour battery life. That is far too short for general industrial use. That means you need to plug them in, which means you don't need them to be mobile (or not very anyway). Substituting wheels for legs increases battery life and reduces costs, but same basic problem. If you have to tether them to a work station, then you probably don't need a general purpose robot. Purpose built or a GP robot modified for the task is probably more suitable.
And I believe at least in the early years there will still be the need for customization. A lot of welding is still done by humans. A welding robot presumably would need the welding optics package, extra good fine motor control, and maybe an extra set of arms to manipulate the work piece. A fabric working robot might need sensors in the fingers to detect squishy things, but a dishwashing robot might need the firm non-slip grip option. A window washing robot might need upgraded optics processing so it can detect glass and tell how dirty a window is. That sort of thing. Maybe one day they would all merge, but I think that day is down the road still.
I was thinking a humanoid robot would be good at doing wildlife surveys. It could do a perfect grid pattern and accurately identify and document all of the flora and fauna in an area. Same with timber surveys.
China has the most factory workers, where they are paid an average of $8,200 USD per year, or less than 1/10th of your guess. Your guess is wildly off - you should have questioned why you estimated factory workers to earn higher wages than the average American. The robots cannot do those jobs more cheaply.I think Optimus will take a lot longer to sell than Musk thinks. There will be rich, early adopters who just want a robot... but then what? Liberals tend to score higher on "openness to experience", which is what you need to try out an AI robot. But Musk has aligned himself closely with Trump, alienating himself from that customer base.There’s a reason most robots sold today look nothing like a human body. That reason is that we have plenty of human bodies - billions of them, and if you hire them to do a task you can just pay them by the hour rather than making a large upfront investment in purchasing a thing (or various lease agreements in which this cost is factored in).
There's a book about innovative products called "Crossing the Chasm", which talks about the wide gap between early adopters and the mainstream customer. I think Optimus could easily fall into that chasm.
The bestselling robots today are things like 12 foot arms that make spot welds, forklift-like robots, robots that fit inside pipes, and airborne drones. In other words, things with a radically different form factor than the human body.
Honda’s Asimo humanoid robot from a decade ago was arguably more advanced than Tesla’s remote controlled Optimus, as it could autonomously respond to various cues. Still, it failed to find a market. This suggests to me that Optimus is more about generating sci fi excitement for the stock price than meeting any particular market need. It reminds me of The Boring Company.
Agreed - robots are already present in manufacturing and other places where a humanoid robot wouldn't be efficient. Tesla's general robot will struggle to compete with specialized industrial robots.
According to this Tesla stock analyst, Optimus robots are already used by Tesla in its manufacturing. Reading between the lines, it sounds like this analyst thinks Tesla could build up AI capability through experience with Optimus - perhaps helping some other products. I don't see any discussion of humanoid robot sales.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/analyst-revisits-tesla-stock-price-114110040.html
Did you not read the posts up thread. There are currently in the world 300 million humans working in factories that do some form of manufacturing. These are human manufacturing jobs where there is not a non-humanoid robot alternative. It is pretty obvious that the bulk of these 300 million human factory workers could be replaced by humanoid robots and the robot replacement would pay for itself in short order. If you have a line job being done by humans in three 8-hours shifts per day. Even if the worker is only earning $10/hr, that's a labor cost of $87,600/year to staff that job with humans. Optimus will cost around $30k to start and go down in cost from there with economies of scale. There are literally millions of factory workers whose jobs can be done more safely and cheaply by a humanoid robot/AI.
Door manYou accused me of not reading prior posts, while yourself ignoring prior posts:
But why do doormen exist at all? It's not really to open doors. They're there partly as a 'look how rich we are, we can hire a dude just to stand there and look pretty' flex, partly do to random general tasks - call a taxi, carry boxes, act as security (checking if people are tailgating when residents enter), sign for/accept packages for guests, answer information queries, general cleaning if the weather outside is poor and the entrance-way gets wet and needs to be mopped. I don't think Optimus would fill this use case very well at all.
Just a couple random thoughts -
1. Tesla kills someone during the limited Austin rollout of FSD (not far fetched given their relatively recent track record (https://youtu.be/jg4UJxEK_Fg?si=B97_WGzNsSnd3fKx)). Nobody is going to want a 150 lb humanoid robot in their house designed by that company.
2. There is a successful cyber attack that leads folks to question overreliance on automation (Every Cyber Attack Facing America (https://youtu.be/wnhCuYRYCdM?si=ty9NoVw4K_221E2L)). AI could help bring this zero day hack to fruition and America is making a lot of enemies. If that happens, see point 1 quite likely scaled up.
Michael Cohen thinks Trump will target Musk by attacking Tesla and clawing back all the subsidies the business was built on.
https://www.rawstory.com/michael-cohen-trump-2672247489/ (https://www.rawstory.com/michael-cohen-trump-2672247489/)
The grocery bagging robot example makes me chuckle. Why would low-margin grocery stores add that expense when customers bag their own for free right now? Every big box store that I enter has increased the number of self-checkouts in the last 5 years, while reducing the number of costly employees.
My local Walmart was remodeled last year, and went from having ~30 traditional checkout lanes + ~12 self checkout registers to having a corral of ~30 self checkout lanes and 0 traditional registers. They have 2 employees at the entry point directing customers to open stations and 2 at the exit watching for shoplifting (probably with some help from cameras/AI).
Convenience stores are offering cashierless transactions, where you just place your items on a table and they're automatically scanned. Amazon has used cashierless stores for awhile.
The same thing is happening in manufacturing, where smarter systems can improve safety, reduce human effort, improve quality, etc.
Low-skill, menial jobs are definitely at risk, but I don't think that risk is humanoid robots. It's just low-level automation, better systems, and expecting customers or a smaller number of employees to do more of the labor.
Even in dangerous situations like the military, we see trends of reducing human involvement. Manned aircraft, boats, etc are being replaced by remote controlled drones. We're not sending humanoid robots into warzones to fight each other. We're flying super cheap drones around remotely.
Just a couple random thoughts -
1. Tesla kills someone during the limited Austin rollout of FSD (not far fetched given their relatively recent track record (https://youtu.be/jg4UJxEK_Fg?si=B97_WGzNsSnd3fKx)). Nobody is going to want a 150 lb humanoid robot in their house designed by that company.
2. There is a successful cyber attack that leads folks to question overreliance on automation (Every Cyber Attack Facing America (https://youtu.be/wnhCuYRYCdM?si=ty9NoVw4K_221E2L)). AI could help bring this zero day hack to fruition and America is making a lot of enemies. If that happens, see point 1 quite likely scaled up.
I'm just waiting to hear about Tesla's service on the first day there is a "gully washer" rainstorm in Austin. It will be a significant disincentive to have a rideshare service that can't operate in the heavy rain, or that has to interrupt rides in progress.
It can be 99% perfect. But if that 1% is fatal, to the service or the car, it will be a differentiator or could kill the service. And yes, the brand identity will transfer to the other products. Something like that might not be immediately fatal, but it certainly gives openings to competitors.
I think a good example of grocery store thinking is seeing the floor sweeping machines strapped with automation equipment to be autonomous (a commercial-scale Roomba) and to do inventory checks with a side scanner.
It wasn't even a purchase, it was a retrofit. They are, and need to be, THAT cheap.
Just a couple random thoughts -
1. Tesla kills someone during the limited Austin rollout of FSD (not far fetched given their relatively recent track record (https://youtu.be/jg4UJxEK_Fg?si=B97_WGzNsSnd3fKx)). Nobody is going to want a 150 lb humanoid robot in their house designed by that company.
2. There is a successful cyber attack that leads folks to question overreliance on automation (Every Cyber Attack Facing America (https://youtu.be/wnhCuYRYCdM?si=ty9NoVw4K_221E2L)). AI could help bring this zero day hack to fruition and America is making a lot of enemies. If that happens, see point 1 quite likely scaled up.
I'm just waiting to hear about Tesla's service on the first day there is a "gully washer" rainstorm in Austin. It will be a significant disincentive to have a rideshare service that can't operate in the heavy rain, or that has to interrupt rides in progress.
It can be 99% perfect. But if that 1% is fatal, to the service or the car, it will be a differentiator or could kill the service. And yes, the brand identity will transfer to the other products. Something like that might not be immediately fatal, but it certainly gives openings to competitors.
Have you ever ridden in a Tesla using FSD v13 during a rainstorm? I'm curious. Have you ever be driven around on v13 period?
I have and it was a non-issue. I rode through heavy rain and the car performed flawlessly. Is there a point where even v13 can't operate in a torrential downpour? Of course, but it's at roughly the same point a human driver should put on the hazards and pull over to wait it out.
One thought:
If Optimus is the ultimate robotic form, why in the world are we working on autonomous cars? We should all just be buying Optimus chauffeurs, who can drive normal cars around, then put the groceries away.
I certainly hope the Robotaxi is better than v13 FSD or else it is geofenced in tightly controlled conditions with some failsafe for a human to take over somehow... People are still reporting having to grab the wheel and having FSD do unexpected actions, but the expectation is that the driver is paying attention (or otherwise FSD scolds you and potentially turns off).
We will wait and see how Austin turns out, my guess is that the rollout will be so limited that success will be an unimpressively low bar. Where Tesla goes from there remains to be seen, maybe the rollout is just super duper slow and everything is OK.
Meanwhile, TSLA the stock is crashing. I guess the inevitable Musk-Trump feud has erupted, with both egos going supernova! I have my Galactus bucket of popcorn ready, this will probably go on for a while... possibly with Trump sicc'ing the NHTSA on Musk right before Austin is even rolled out.
I certainly hope the Robotaxi is better than v13 FSD or else it is geofenced in tightly controlled conditions with some failsafe for a human to take over somehow... People are still reporting having to grab the wheel and having FSD do unexpected actions, but the expectation is that the driver is paying attention (or otherwise FSD scolds you and potentially turns off).
We will wait and see how Austin turns out, my guess is that the rollout will be so limited that success will be an unimpressively low bar. Where Tesla goes from there remains to be seen, maybe the rollout is just super duper slow and everything is OK.
Meanwhile, TSLA the stock is crashing. I guess the inevitable Musk-Trump feud has erupted, with both egos going supernova! I have my Galactus bucket of popcorn ready, this will probably go on for a while... possibly with Trump sicc'ing the NHTSA on Musk right before Austin is even rolled out.
I certainly hope the Robotaxi is better than v13 FSD or else it is geofenced in tightly controlled conditions with some failsafe for a human to take over somehow... People are still reporting having to grab the wheel and having FSD do unexpected actions, but the expectation is that the driver is paying attention (or otherwise FSD scolds you and potentially turns off).
We will wait and see how Austin turns out, my guess is that the rollout will be so limited that success will be an unimpressively low bar. Where Tesla goes from there remains to be seen, maybe the rollout is just super duper slow and everything is OK.
Meanwhile, TSLA the stock is crashing. I guess the inevitable Musk-Trump feud has erupted, with both egos going supernova! I have my Galactus bucket of popcorn ready, this will probably go on for a while... possibly with Trump sicc'ing the NHTSA on Musk right before Austin is even rolled out.
Today was a buying day. Stock was dumping on no material news and on the eve of robotaxi roll out.
Just a couple random thoughts -
1. Tesla kills someone during the limited Austin rollout of FSD (not far fetched given their relatively recent track record (https://youtu.be/jg4UJxEK_Fg?si=B97_WGzNsSnd3fKx)). Nobody is going to want a 150 lb humanoid robot in their house designed by that company.
2. There is a successful cyber attack that leads folks to question overreliance on automation (Every Cyber Attack Facing America (https://youtu.be/wnhCuYRYCdM?si=ty9NoVw4K_221E2L)). AI could help bring this zero day hack to fruition and America is making a lot of enemies. If that happens, see point 1 quite likely scaled up.
I'm just waiting to hear about Tesla's service on the first day there is a "gully washer" rainstorm in Austin. It will be a significant disincentive to have a rideshare service that can't operate in the heavy rain, or that has to interrupt rides in progress.
It can be 99% perfect. But if that 1% is fatal, to the service or the car, it will be a differentiator or could kill the service. And yes, the brand identity will transfer to the other products. Something like that might not be immediately fatal, but it certainly gives openings to competitors.
Have you ever ridden in a Tesla using FSD v13 during a rainstorm? I'm curious. Have you ever be driven around on v13 period?
I have and it was a non-issue. I rode through heavy rain and the car performed flawlessly. Is there a point where even v13 can't operate in a torrential downpour? Of course, but it's at roughly the same point a human driver should put on the hazards and pull over to wait it out.
As I have said before, I am an automotive engineer. I have not only driven in recent autonomous Teslas, but in other autonomous vehicles and their predecessors since 2002.
Have you ever read Nassim Taleb's The Black Swan? I would particularly pay attention to what he has to say about confirmation bias.
I certainly hope the Robotaxi is better than v13 FSD or else it is geofenced in tightly controlled conditions with some failsafe for a human to take over somehow... People are still reporting having to grab the wheel and having FSD do unexpected actions, but the expectation is that the driver is paying attention (or otherwise FSD scolds you and potentially turns off).
We will wait and see how Austin turns out, my guess is that the rollout will be so limited that success will be an unimpressively low bar. Where Tesla goes from there remains to be seen, maybe the rollout is just super duper slow and everything is OK.
Meanwhile, TSLA the stock is crashing. I guess the inevitable Musk-Trump feud has erupted, with both egos going supernova! I have my Galactus bucket of popcorn ready, this will probably go on for a while... possibly with Trump sicc'ing the NHTSA on Musk right before Austin is even rolled out.
Today was a buying day. Stock was dumping on no material news and on the eve of robotaxi roll out.
I wouldn't say the federal government targeting TSLA isn't material.
I certainly hope the Robotaxi is better than v13 FSD or else it is geofenced in tightly controlled conditions with some failsafe for a human to take over somehow... People are still reporting having to grab the wheel and having FSD do unexpected actions, but the expectation is that the driver is paying attention (or otherwise FSD scolds you and potentially turns off).
We will wait and see how Austin turns out, my guess is that the rollout will be so limited that success will be an unimpressively low bar. Where Tesla goes from there remains to be seen, maybe the rollout is just super duper slow and everything is OK.
Meanwhile, TSLA the stock is crashing. I guess the inevitable Musk-Trump feud has erupted, with both egos going supernova! I have my Galactus bucket of popcorn ready, this will probably go on for a while... possibly with Trump sicc'ing the NHTSA on Musk right before Austin is even rolled out.
Today was a buying day. Stock was dumping on no material news and on the eve of robotaxi roll out.
I wouldn't say the federal government targeting TSLA isn't material.
How is the federal government targeting Tesla? I ignored the noise when the stock went up to an ATH because everyone thought Tesla would benefit from Trump. I'll ignore this as well until there is an actual government policy change affecting Tesla and not just fear mongering. Trying to trade based on what Trump might do tomorrow is a fools errand.
As I have said before, I am an automotive engineer. I have not only driven in recent autonomous Teslas, but in other autonomous vehicles and their predecessors since 2002.
As I have said before, I am an automotive engineer. I have not only driven in recent autonomous Teslas, but in other autonomous vehicles and their predecessors since 2002.
How would you rate the various systems and what are the biggest improvements needed?
Even by Musk's own admission in the last earning call, the company could be on the edge of insolvency and clinging to life if this Robotaxi business is a failure, since the car selling part of the business is in free fall and competition is eating their lunch.
The EV maker generated $692 million from selling regulatory credits in the last quarter of 2024 alone. It accounted for nearly 30% of its quarterly net income of $2.33 billion.- https://carboncredits.com/teslas-carbon-credits-crash-in-q1-2025-earnings-drop-and-ev-sales-fall/
Tesla's free cash flow is still in good shape (but declining) and they have plenty of cash on hand. So I think they will be okay for a while. But I agree with your main point. They need to start turning things around.
And I just saw this. No interest financing on the cybertruck if you purchase FSD.
https://electrek.co/2025/06/05/tesla-goes-full-desperate-cybertruck-with-biggest-discount-yet/
And I just saw this. No interest financing on the cybertruck if you purchase FSD.Wait, are you telling me the type of people whose judgment leads them to buy $80,000 motodumpsters are not paying cash for them?