The Money Mustache Community
Learning, Sharing, and Teaching => Investor Alley => Topic started by: FrugalSaver on March 22, 2018, 10:20:26 PM
-
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?
I've considered the same thing, but mostly because I believe in what they're doing, not because I expect them to skyrocket in price like Amazon.
Tesla the company is not doing that well. And I personally don't believe that investing in individual companies will get me where I want to go. I'm all in on just plain whole-market index funds. Matching the market is possible; beating it consistently is just not something people can do, and a lot of people lose a lot of money proving that every day.
So I'd say invest in Tesla with a small portion of your money that you can afford to lose, because it's a total gamble. And recognize that you're just as likely to lose that money as to break even or make a profit. If your goal is to beat the market and get rich quick, you're going to waste money and time, and be disappointed.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Could TSLA be a 10 bagger a decade from now?
Let me consult my crystal ball and get back to you.
All kidding aside, as others have mentioned, put some fun money in there if you think it might be your golden goose, but I wouldn't bet my life savings on this one stock. I myself have $1000 in TSLA. I just think the cars are pretty -- I like the concept.
-
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.
This. Individual equities are entertainment money. Buy it if you would value having some Tesla stock but have the correct mindset about it.
-
I’d like to believe they are competitively positioned in the market place. I even purchased a 17’ Model S but leave the stock alone. It really is not consistent with my investment ideology. The car is absolutely incredible. First vehicle I have not even a hint of buyers remorse over.
I think the long term outlook is far more favorable for profitability than the near term.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I consider Tesla like alot of people considered Apple about 5 years ago. Everyone said Android and Samsung and (insert iPhone killer companies) would eat their lunch. They thought that all of the other companies would make phones that were as good or better than Apple and once that happened, Apple would collapse and fade away to oblivion. Obviously that didn't happen.
I feel like lots of people felt about Apple back then, i.e. Tesla's got some pretty good products, but their lead in the space can't last for much longer and when all the big car companies get into this space, Tesla won't be able to keep their lead up anymore.
They may be a fine niche car maker with a good brand, but their current market cap cannot be justified in that scenario, where they are a top 20 car maker not a top 5.
Now I have no idea whether they will go the way of most startups and fail after being targeted by the "big players" or they will, like Apple, prove everyone wrong, but the former seems more likely than the latter.
Charging infrastructure is not as big of a competitive advantage as you might think. Government (federal/state/local) are all trying to push for more infrastructure and many private companies are trying to do the same. If you look at this map, you can toggle on and off the superchargers and see that, their network is significant, no doubt about it, but you're not going to be stranded if you only had to use non-Tesla branded chargers, though you may have to pay.
https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html#/find/nearest?fuel=ELEC
edited to add: These large battery electric vehicles don't really need local charging since you can go 200+ miles on a charge and you'll be at home (and able to charge) much more frequently than every 200 miles. It's only on longer inter-city trips that you'll need charging infrastructure and that's more straightforward to install with decent coverage (along interstates, US highways etc. . .).
-
Nobody’s mentioned what Tesla is doing in China. There are quite a few Teslas on the road. And I’m sure they’re probably building super charging thingies throughout China.
-
Forget the cars for a moment. Right now Tesla has a market cap on par with GM, Ford, and the other big automakers. Take a look at Tesla's revenue and assets compared to those. Even with an insane growth rate, it would be a long time before making any money based on increased book value or earnings. Any return at this point will most likely be speculative. I'm not a CFA or anything, but I don't recommend any serious investment in individual securities unless you have read Benjamin Graham's books The Intelligent Investor and Security Analysis.
-
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 intends to be more than just a car company. It’s woefully unprofitable. However, so has been amazon throughout its life.
It's amazing how the canard that Tesla has any similarities to Amazon persists. Amazon has had persistently strong positive cash flow for almost 2 decades. Tesla has had persistently strong cash burn for their entire 14 years. Tesla is 100% dependent on frequent infusions of fresh investor cash while Amazon is entirely self funded. As soon as Tesla runs out of enough gullible donors to their massive cash bonfire, bankruptcy will incur. Amazon is merely hugely overvalued. Tesla is a $0.
-
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.
-
Tesla seems to have some fundamental flaws and I believe they all track back to Elon. He is a visionary but he needs to be insulated from the manufacturing side of the business because his late changes and micromanagement does not mesh well with design freezes and the manufacture of a product. The bad part is they are located in an area that is short on manufacturing experience so few are challenging his ideas.
On top of that, their market cap is on par with automakers that already mass manufacture vehicles at a large profit. If everything goes perfectly, TSLA should have a valuation in the region it's at right now... and there is nothing in Tesla's past to demonstrate things will go perfectly (much the opposite).
-
The conventional wisdom is,
"Buy low and sell high, and if it doesn't go up don't buy it."
-
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.
-
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.
Um, no. The "Lose money on S and X" is something being pushed by Seeking Alpha and the other shorts. Tesla has a healthy gross profit on the S and the X. They're dumping a lot of money into SG&A (building superchargers, service centers, et cetera) and R&D (autonomous driving, semi, pickup truck, crossover "model Y", storage, solar roof, etc.)
Model 3 had depreciation for the production line spread across a couple thousand cars last year. Having it spread across ~100x as many will help a lot.
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.
The new Leaf isn't a brand new design on a brand new production line. It's being produced on the same lines as the prior Leaf. It's just a model year improvement. Huge difference.
-
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.
Depends how often he drives from Austin to Ft. Worth (or other long distance travel) - the rest of the time he can just recharge overnight in the garage instead of having to go to the gas station. With a new Tesla - if he stays overnight and you have a dryer outlet in your garage (or he stays at a hotel with a destination charger) - he has no need to stop either direction. If he has an older S60, he might need to top off for 5 minutes at the Supercharger.
That "not just a quick thing" to Supercharge is still FAR faster than any other charging network for any other car. Agreed that it's just a barely tolerable recharge speed.
Disclosure: I do have a Model 3 reservation. I only own the stock as part of VTI.
-
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?
-
I own the stock because after missing the boat on Amazon, Netflix and Apple, I decided that, even though they appear to be overvalued at current levels, I wasn't going to miss the boat on another potential "game changer." As others have suggested, I only invest in individual companies with fun money. I'm up about 35% on it and have a stop-loss set so I can't lose anything on 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?
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.
-
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.
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.
-
You didn't miss the boat on Amazon. Its shareprice does not reflect its actual value as a share. Basically, there is a lot of speculation behind its shareprice.
Yes, it has a HUGE growth. But that does not mean that dividends even really exist. Management chooses to expand as there is room for that--walmart and costco are competitors. Walmart's revenue is 400 billion last I checked, so there is a way to go.
You missed the boat of speculative investors. I don't think you really missed anything.
If you want to invest, as a strategy, in beating the speculators, you're banking on predicting the future. Nobody can do that.
If you owned VSTAX you would come out fine...
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
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
-
Please provide evidence of that original Model 3 target because I was not aware of that and my google skills are letting me down.
Sure thing. Here's an article written when the change was made:
https://electrek.co/2016/05/04/tesla-tsla-surge-model-3-production/
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
I should hope GM would boost production later this year. January + February projects out to about 15k Bolts in 2018, which is just pitiful.
I won't say Tesla is doing well with their ramp, but the delays are understandable. They are a new car company that 6 years ago had never produced a single car on an assembly line. They are trying to set up a new and very different assembly line on a brand new model.
The factory is not "set up" for that full production yet. They will have to add more equipment (possibly a full additional assembly line) for 10k/week (500k/year) of Model 3.
Basically, they are failing to meet the accelerated goals - they are on track to meet the original goals from early 2016:
5k cars per week by the end of 2018
10k cars per week by the end of 2020
We will learn more in early April when they release quarterly numbers. One hopeful sign is the increase in Model 3 VIN numbers registered - almost 4,700 last week.
-
Please provide evidence of that original Model 3 target because I was not aware of that and my google skills are letting me down.
Sure thing. Here's an article written when the change was made:
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.
Did the 5k/week target ever change? Because that is the target they have missed massively and I was trying to find evidence of.
-
Please provide evidence of that original Model 3 target because I was not aware of that and my google skills are letting me down.
Sure thing. Here's an article written when the change was made:
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.
Did the 5k/week target ever change? Because that is the target they have missed massively and I was trying to find evidence of.
5k/week was always an interim target, originally planned as the full output of the first Model 3 production line once optimized - I'm pretty sure it was end of 2018 for the original target - but it's probably buried in some investor conference call or conference and I'm not going to spend the time to comb it out. The 10k/week rate was planned once a second full production line was set up.
-
TSLA stock is a hyper-speculative bet on the future of one company's line of R&D (on the flip side, TSLA is one of the few American companies still investing in R&D).
And no, nobody on this forum or Seeking Alpha knows squat about how well they will produce cars over the next 2 years, what engineering challenges are coming, etc.
It would be nice to catch the upside of Tesla if it happens, and cap one's losses if it doesn't. Here's how to do that:
Buy the $300 call option maturing in January 2020. Risk is about $78 (price of option) instead of $301 (price of stock). If Tesla succeeds with the launch of its current products and the share price skyrockets, you will receive the upside times 3.84x leverage. If Tesla fails to get mass production off the ground or gets cut off from investor funds or whatever, you'll be glad to have only lost $78!
TL;DR: obtain almost 4x upside leverage while risking only a fraction of the money.
-
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.
-
It's been a rough week
-
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.
-
i like tesla but to invest your money in a single stock or move a large portion of your AA there is a poor move. All the big car companies who know how to produce cars will be all electrica by the mid 2020's. Tesla is a trailblazer and helped pave the way for a cleaner earth but i dont currently see how they continue to grow unless the beat the big guys at automation - which currently it appears GM is winning.
-
This WSJ article is helpful primer on the issues Tesla is facing at the moment: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clock-is-ticking-faster-at-tesla-1522233639
-
Their credit rating is Caa and two pretty senior finance managers recently quit. They need $2B to cover the cash shortfall this year. And the upcoming announcement of Model 3 production will be way below forecast. I suggest you short Tesla.
-
I just buy broad-based, low cost index funds ;)
-
@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.
Five 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.
-
@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.
Five 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.
-
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.
You may want to do some research on this one , although I agree with the rest of your sentiments. I work in the automotive industry and as it sits Tesla is light years behind in automation and one of their largest struggles currently is LACK of automation.
-
Bloomberg said 1/3 of their income goes straight to interest on loans. That cant be good or last?
-
@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.
Five 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 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
-
Probably not, but I maintain that if you are a vocal Tesla short there is a 97.3% chance you have a micro penis.
-
I'm a buyer of Tesla.
The car.
Not the stock.
-
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
You have to be careful with technical knowledge about companies with superior products. The best product/service does not always win or become most profitable. Examples: VHS vs. Betamax, BluRay vs. HD DVD, Microsoft Windows vs. Apple in the 80s-90s, Japanese vs. Harley motorcycles, Huffy bicycles vs. higher quality brands, etc.
Tesla certainly has a lot of engineers who are fans of their products, but their recent troubles illustrate the risks of stock picking based on product attributes.
-
@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.
Five 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/
-
@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.
Five 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/
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/
Also, there is already a M3 on the market so I would skip using that abbreviation for the Model 3.
-
So, I'm pretty opposed to individual stock picking, but I find Tesla interesting. However, I think that they're a young enough company that they don't have enough cars on the road/batteries on the wall/ships in space/loops underground to know when they'll hit the kinds of major speed bumps that other manufacturers have. However, they have had a fair sized recall this week (123k vehicles) and I suspect that this will act as a good test of their infrastructure, particularly as they are based on a storefront model and are probably serviced in fewer places.
-
Also - this was announced two days ago, before your "prediction" ;)
https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/g19605464/best-cars-2018/
Yes, I know, guess my attempt at humor and smiley face went unnoticed.
-
@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.
Five 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 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)
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 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)
While GM might be having EV production problems similar to Tesla, they're still selling thousands other cars to stay profitable while they work out whatever issues they might be having.
-
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?).
Notionally an EV should be simpler.
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.
-
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 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.
-
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)
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.
-
I easily purchased a Chevrolet Bolt in mid-December 2017, and I absolutely love the car!!! I got the "Everyone is an Employee GM Discount" along with another 3,500 in discounts.
I hope Tesla will have success in production, Bloomberg has a Tesla 3 production tracker: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-tracker/
-
Can any other retail types get a quote on the TLSA bonds? I'm not seeing them via my brokers (not the convertible ones).
I personally have a target price (range) where I may be interested (using GM as a comp) but it is a lot lower. Might do a post if it gets within hailing distance.
I wouldn't short it because Sergey and Larry were already reportedly interested in buying it out back in the day and that was before he built arguably one of the more valuable brands in the world.
-
I remember thinking of throwing a few thousand into tesla stock years ago, just for fun. But I wasn't sure if it would go anywhere. It was ~$30/share. So yes Tesla would be great, fantastic investment in 2012! It's already up 10x. Can it do that again? Only thing that has changed is that they are loosing even more money, and now struggle to produce a different car.
Answer to your question: I have no idea. I suppose my guess is no since I still haven't bought a single share.
-
tesla-making-2000-model-3s-per-week
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-deliveries/tesla-making-2000-model-3s-per-week-report-idUSKCN1H91IC
-
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.
-
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.
What comes to mind in my opinion is a Q/A John Doerr gave at UC Berkeley where he touted some of the battery technology in the pipeline.
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 wonder what warranty costs are for Tesla. I've been looking over reviews by owners (who love their cars) and started to notice that many of them have had the drive unit replaced (motor) under warranty, sometimes more than once. Same for battery packs. Same for the transmission unit that cannot be repaired, only replaced. Those with lots of miles (one guy with 250k miles on a Model S) have had to pay for replacements. Outrageous prices, to the point where it's become a reasonable decision to scrap the car.
If I need an engine/transmission/drive axle/door handle for my Subaru, I know I can get it reasonably easy for somewhat reasonable money from a junkyard. Tesla? Not so much.
-
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.
I always thought it was a little weird how high up Tesla got in terms of market cap considering the relatively low their revenue was to the other manufacturers they were "worth more than." I mean, Ford had a net income over half the total revenue of Tesla in 2017. That Tesla is valued in the same league seems a bit strange to me.
Having worked in manufacturing, too, it's one thing to make a relatively low volume high end premium item. It's an entirely different story to make mass produced commodity items, which is what the Model 3 is more akin to.
-
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 bulls touting the stock are not looking at the numbers in my opinion, just looking at the hype .
-
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.
This thread and these sorts of responses to criticism of Tesla is crystallizing in my mind the issue I have with Tesla. Though I have been critical of Tesla, I, along with most everyone here, would like Tesla (the company) to do well. I want them to be successful in mass producing their cars and continue to help bring about EVs as a mainstream product. However, there's that view of Tesla and then there's Tesla (the stock), which I feel has no business being valued where it is (at this point).
The most obvious question I have is what is the value of the the company (and stock) based on some sort of fundamental analysis? If we weren't anchored to a price around 200-400 dollars per share (because that's it's recent history) and I were to present to you a description of a company that had the same metrics as Tesla, what is the market cap that you would come up with. A car company (that may have some proprietary technology, though that's debateable) that is selling 5000-10000 cars per month and hopes to sell 300,000-500,000 in a year or two. I think a market cap between 10-20 billion seems reasonable. You can be optimistic about the where the company is going relative to where it is now (i.e. I think they'll sell 10x cars in 3-4 years) but still be pessimistic about where the stock price should be relative to where it is now (maybe it should be 1/2 the value it is).
-
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.
Where did you saw that Cost of that option ?? I don´t think that one TSLA CALL in 2020 costs just 78usd, even in the stock´s healthy days or days without volatility....
-
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.
They are also gambling they can ramp up production of electric cars faster than other car manufacturers can develop cost comparable electric cars.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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)
-
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.
Apparently they have worked through the initial issues and did a full week at that rate, with the same output expected to continue going forward.
That said, I still don't own any Tesla stock, other than whatever fraction of VTI they have.
-
At the Detroit Auto Show, the Chevy Bolt was able to be viewed. Compared with all the other electric cars including the very expensive Mercedes and BMW electric models the Bolt was by far the best electric car I saw - the longest range, and overall good styling. However, Tesla had no presence at the auto show so I couldn't really compare the Model 3 with the Bolt.
-
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.
It's really no different than the Amazon model of growth, with lots of losses in the beginning.
-
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.
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 is losing spending money hand over fist. Now, maybe that's the plan. And maybe it will pay off in the end. But Tesla is losing spending huge amounts of money, and they are losing spending 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.
-
I might have more confidence if Elon Musk was focused instead of attempting to launch a dozen businesses at once.
-
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 spending money hand over fist. Now, maybe that's the plan. And maybe it will pay off in the end. But Tesla is losing spending huge amounts of money, and they are losing spending 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.
Whether Tesla is losing or investing, they appear to have more money going out than coming in at the moment. As you stated in your last sentence, if they're not running an overall profit, then somebody has to feed them the capital to do whatever it is semantically that they're doing. How long that "someone" will continue to do so is the primary point of discussion.
-
Tesla is a good investment if you invest 0.15% of US equity portfolio. You will have about the same expected return as the market if you pick stocks, but a major deviation from market cap weighting carries a risk of greater volatility. If you want to pick stocks for fun, you should enter a kids stock market game.
-
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).
Most manufacturing companies don't just aim for the level of sales that Tesla is aiming for though. A slower ramp up is far more sustainable for business growth.
It's possible Tesla will succeed at this. It's also possible they won't.
Having worked as a manufacturing engineer before, the challenges Tesla is facing for ramping up production are definitely non-trivial and ones that companies which have been around much longer and actually running at a profit have difficulties with, too.
-
I do not follow Tesla stock closely and am not invested in the company. That said, Tesla stock is volatile. You have to know that going in and you have to have the stomach to see your shares rise and fall and rise and fall.
You need to consider your long term investing strategy and how Tesla fits in. Is this a small, speculative fun money fling, or do you intend to build a significant position in the company? The other question is -- is Tesla the very best company with the best prospects for you?
It sounds like you are thinking of gambling, and that's never a good idea.
Lastly I will offer that Amazon's story is not over, and there are many companies out there to learn about and follow. Personally I would not start out with a big story stock. I know a lot of Tesla investors and it is an intriguing company. Take your time and be careful.
Buffet's #1 rule of investing -- Never lose money. Rule #2 is Never forget rule #1. How confident are you in the stock's success?
Best wishes!
-
I might have more confidence if Elon Musk was focused instead of attempting to launch a dozen businesses at once.
Apparently there is only so much Elon that the average person can take in a work environment. He's a workaholic. He works full time at Tesla, full time at SpaceX and dabbles in everything else. He's repeatedly said that The Boring Company is a hobby that takes 2-3% of his time. If a billionaire industrialist wants to have a hobby of digging tunnels instead of digging in the garden, who am I to judge?
-
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?).
Notionally an EV should be simpler.
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.
Has anyone seen The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the Eighth Dimension?
"What's that thing made of?"
"Cobalt and electricity!"
Cobalt is abundant enough, but unfortunately mostly comes from the DRC. Those little kids are not digging it up fast enough, sheesh we are trying to save the world here ;P (satirical)
Trying to predict what will happen in battery technology in the near future is even tougher than predicting what will happen to Tesla. I think the one thing everyone can agree on is that someone will solve this problem, since the reward is many billions of dollars.
-
I'm happy that the Vanguard Total Stock Market index includes some Tesla.
-
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.
-
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'm not a Tesla bear, but this I think is not quite right. Tesla's competition right now is the entire automotive market, not just the long-rage BEV-only market.
Even if we ignore gas cars, the Chevy Volt seems to be a well-regarded plug-in hybrid, not to mention the Prius. Plug-in hybrids also completely negate the Dealership and Charging Network points you made.
We're also seeing an enormous wave of PHEV and BEV models being announced for the 2019 model year, and that will probably only accelerate in later years. For Tesla's valuation to make sense you're pretty much betting that they can successfully scale and innovate faster than the entire rest of the auto industry combined. Which they may, and their battery manufacturing is certainly an asset, but I don't think it's obvious that a Tesla victory is the only path forward.
I would love to own a Tesla. But if I'm going to buy another car I need one that has room for at least 3 carseats, and the Model X is a ~$100k car. That's an awful lot of money. What do you want to bet that some other make will come out next year or the one after that makes a minivan or suv for half of that? Could I really opt for the premium Tesla option if there was something else available? Or, since this is the MMM forums, why not a $10k used minivan and save the other $90k for gas? And if I, a Tesla fanboy, will probably never own one, then why would the hoards of Average Joes?
I think the Model 3s really are make-or-break for Tesla. They need to start selling cars priced so that the average person can buy one. And then once they do the cars need to compete with all the other cars at that price-point, you can't assume that the whole population will suddenly become fans of BEVs.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
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!
-
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!
I'll let the gamblers respond to your challenge. As a stout 3 fund portfolio guy, I expect that somewhere in my total US market, there's probably some TSLA. Since there are so many other stocks in the index fund, the fall of TSLA won't hurt me much. If I were to buy any single stock, it would be BRK. Why? It's like a well managed total US stock fund and since it pays no dividends, would cost me zero in tax.
I get that you're a Tesla fanboi. Nothing wrong with that. Having enthusiasm over a cool product is nothing bad. I've always loved light, good handling cars. I owned a Lotus Elise because of that love. I didn't buy it because I thought the company was wonderful. Dany Bahar headed Lotus when I bought my car and not only was he incompetent, he was a total dick and nearly drove the company into bankruptcy. Tesla needs to do some very well defined tasks to be successful. 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. They need to learn quality control. They need to lose some of the complexity for the sake of complexity garbage such as the pop out $900 model S door handles that fail about once a year, the push button electric door exits on the model 3 and the silly pigeon wing doors on the model X. These are all examples of what the big guys put into prototypes to wow people at car shows but are jettisoned in favor of reliable pieces for production. I mean really.....what's wrong with a simple loop style external handle on most normal cars. No stupid electricals to fail, always works, cheap to manufacture, cheap to repair, even Clem down at the Gas n' Go could fix them.
I've always liked the Model S body shape. I've also said for a long time that if I wanted to own one, I'd buy one salvage and swap in a Corvette LS engine and rear transaxle (with....of course....a proper manual gearbox).
-
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.
-
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.
For batteries, Tesla can buy up the battery supply and use them to build energy storage installations. Even if they break even, they can deny the competition battery capacity. I agree that over the long haul, this will not be an issue, but if Tesla can stave off competition for even 5 years, they will be in very good shape. I'm not convinced having in house battery production is going to benefit them in the long run, but in the medium term (10 years), I think it will prove to be the right decision.
Dealerships: Tesla does not need to take 100% market share. Even 5% of the world market would be fantastic.
Charging network: I own a Ford Focus electric, and the charging situation in Portland has been really bad by my experience. Maybe it's location dependent, or maybe I just had bad luck, but I no longer use public charging stations - I use my gas instead car for any trips that may require a charging station.
Lack of incentive: Chevrolet is talking about discontinuing the Sonic, and Ford is discontinuing the Fiesta. Many manufacturers are in similar talks about discontinuing entry level cars and focusing on more profitable vehicles.
As far as comparable cars, it's worth remembering that GM would need to increase their cost on the Bolt to $50k just to break even financially. Then, once the $7500 tax credit goes away, we'll see how many people are willing to buy it. The Bolt is similar to a Tesla Model 3 in the same way that a Toyota Camry is similar to a BMW 3 series.
I'm not a Tesla Fanboy, I have an MSEE and have taken classes in batteries, electric vehicle design and I work in the power industry. My depth of understanding of the topic is much deeper than that. Also, although I could, I would never buy one of their products. Thus why I'm on this forum :)
The biggest problems I see for Tesla are:
- Getting their expenses under control: This is hard to quantify because we don't really know what all Tesla is working on. Their expenditure is very high on R&D, but if that's because they're developing 5 new products, then that's acceptable. If they're developing 1, then that's much less acceptable. I could see a company run by engineers developing a lot of 'pet projects' over time that are interesting but ultimately have no profitable purpose. This problem will only become worse over time.
- It's illegal for them to sell cars in some states, so they have to have a store in the state and sell from another state. This is a real problem for the mainstream buyer
- Their ability to do creative financing (like dealerships routinely do) really limits their mainstream appeal. Tesla has a much higher share of cash/loan buyers than other auto manufacturers. Mainstream buyers prefer leases more. Tesla does not currently have the ability to deliver, let's say 200k leases per year.
- Since their ordering takes place online, it will remain to be seen if the mainstream buyer is ok with 3-6 month waits. My suspicion is that Tesla will need to have some sort of wait period so that they don't cause havoc at the factory. Traditional automakers use the dealerships as this buffer - they can push unwanted cars onto the dealerships for storage and gradually increase/decrease production
- Adding to the previous point, if there were say, an extended slowdown in demand, let's say because of some kind of PR disaster, what happens to their financials? Their profitability is dependent on them producing at near full capacity, so if they start going to 50% capacity for a year, that could spell real problems for them. This is where the uncertainty comes in because selling to die hard Tesla fans is very different than selling to the mainstream - something that they have yet to demonstrate.
- I don't see a path for them to get to say 5 Gigafactories and 5 auto factories without significant capital raises. Once Model 3 production gets to 10k/week, they will have a good amount of cash to work with, but not enough to build those factories in a timely manner. So while they will remain solvent and profitable, their growth may be constrained by the general market conditions. If we go through a credit crunch like in 2008, Tesla growth could be basically on hold for years. This time may give other auto manufacturers the time that they need to catch up as they can fuel new factory construction using their substantial profits.
-
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.
The first part would be stupid, and the last part is already figured out.
Tesla now produces roughly 2,000 Model 3 per week, plus 1500-2,000 (Model S + Model X) per week.
How many Bolts does GM produce in a week? This year so far, looks like maybe 300-400.
Tesla also offers notably longer range than those prismatic-cell cars. The real problem with those dense close packed prismatic cells is temperature control, which is a major factor in durability. GM seems to have figured it out, Nissan definitely has not. Tesla has it figured out.
-
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
I also think it would be pretty weird to chastise GM for missing slightly on a sales forecast when Tesla has missed literally every target they have put out in the last 5 years. :)
-
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.
-
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.
This is the some of the worst advice I've ever heard in Investor Alley.
Do you know how much it helps Tesla if you buy there stock? None at all. They got all their money when they sold the shares to the public in the IPO. All you're doing now is trading slices of ownership for money with some other random Joe. It literally doesn't help them at all, so there's no reason for you to risk your own personal wealth unless you think it's a good investment. Aka, you think you're getting more than your money's worth, and you are highly confident that the price will rise in the future because you see something the average investor doesn't. If you actually don't know what you're talking about, which it certainly seems is true, then just follow the expert advice and put it in an index fund.
Can we observe how nonsensical your advice is? "Do it! But don't do it, IDK. But do it though! Just a little bit." Seriously guy, if you don't have anything to say then don't say anything and don't tell other people how to waste their money. Let's be clear, I don't have a problem with you in particular or with Tesla. I have a problem with people who have no idea what they're talking about telling other people what to do.
I hope Tesla succeeds. To some degree they already have; they've kicked the other auto manufacturers in the pants and made them take the idea of electric cars seriously. I also believe electric cars are the future, be it 5 years from now or 50 years from now. But I'm also not spending a single dollar on any individual stock, especially not TSLA at this price.
-
Yep! If the stock price rises, and there is high demand for it, the company can later issue more shares if it needs more capital. Having a high price, gives a cushion so supply can increase without a loss of value for its primary investors. This is why we invest in companies that we think will do better, and why stores of value (like gold), are only useful as hedges against inflation or a short term economic downturn.
I see it this way. It is super hard to gain knowledge or insight about a company over the general public, or against savvy firms like Bridgewater. In addition, because of lotto bias, you need to be really careful about peoples results or claims. Taking positions against individual companies is just really risky and we should be honest about that.
So I personally say invest in TSLA if you think they are cool, believe in what they are doing, and want a piece of the company. Beyond the whole stock buyback thing, there are other ways a high stock price benefits them. But I don't have enough insight to say they will make you money. So like please don't leverage(don't do this ever) or put your life savings with them. I sort of hope that was implied. I mean supporting them is nice, but like I hope no one is naive enoughto think the small amount they personally have is enough to make anything more than a token difference. I personally have a small fraction of a share I got for free.
Then again, I'm a noob. I am not going to suggest anything other than a broad index.
With that said, if you think investing is all about objective facts and not about personal biases and emotions. Welp I have some bad news for you there.
And jeese no need to be so mean.
-
And jeese no need to be so mean.
Sorry, I agree I owe you an apology there.
-
Saul Good Man
-
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
-
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.
-
Tesla is more than a mere investment. Brother Elon may soon have need of our cash! Thus, I think it may be time to start the "Tesla tithe." http://thecorpraider.com/2018/05/03/the-telsa-tithe/ (http://thecorpraider.com/2018/05/03/the-telsa-tithe/)
-
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!
-
I think he means large equity valuation rather than "high share price." A "thick equity cushion" as Reed Hastings (who also can burn cash on a world class scale), put it. Of course that thick cushion can evaporate really quickly.
-
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!
I'm talking about the pizza getting bigger, not how you slice it. I agree about the share price not being the end-all if there are splits.
-
@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.
Five 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'm feeling good about my TSLA holdings and my 2018 predictions bolded above. All the trend lines are favorable exiting Q2.
Tesla produced over 41,000 Model 3 sedans in the first half of the year. They are currently producing roughly 4,500 Model 3s per week at a sustainable rate. Their stated goal is 6,000/week by end of August. Even if they only average 5,000/week for the remainder of the year, they would still produce well over 150,000 Model 3 in 2018. Combined with roughly 100,000 Model S and X and Tesla appears on track to sell over a quarter million EVs in 2018 and a half million vehicles in 2019.
A slow in capex, favorable economies of scale, and cost saving measures, should allow Tesla to post its 2nd ever profitable quarter in Q3.
Stock price jumped to $345 (ATH is around $360) following Q2 ER. Profitable Q3 will catapult SP well over $400 IMO.
Will update again at the end of Q3.
-
I hope Tesla changes the planet.
-
I hope Tesla changes the planet.
Me too. Solar is the future. But my next car will be a second hand Leaf...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
There's a reason stock prices appreciate when healthy and expanding companies reinvest in themselves rather than sit on profits. If you don't understand this or don't feel like these gains are grounded, I would suggest you look into a much more conservative approach to retirement, such as limiting yourself to dividend funds and bonds and CDs and drawing on 2% of your nest egg rather than the standard 4%.
-
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.
whoa, that is crazy. I was definitely wrong about the near-term movement of the stock (luckily I'm not short or anything). At some point the company has to justify this crazy market cap. For now, I guess there are enough people excited about the potential of the company to ignore what a 71 billion market cap implies.
-
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.
Apparently the Saudis. Specifically the Saudia Arabia Sovereign Wealth Fund.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Investment_Fund_of_Saudi_Arabia
Which makes some sense as a hedging scheme for them. If Tesla (and other EV producers) continue explosive growth, their main current value (oil) largely goes away.
-
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.
Tesla stock price still severely trails the overall market for the last 12 months.
-
Wow, things are getting real interesting over there at Tesla...going to be interesting couple of months. Probably pretty exciting to work there!
-
So for those that have commented on this thread, have we been gifted yet another amazing entry point?!?
$263
-
TSLA closed at $309 on the day this thread was started. Is there some light at the end of the tunnel that I'm not seeing? Quality issues continue and are hitting the bottom line. Drive units aren't cheap to replace and they are getting replaced even when the motor is fine because the bearings are under engineered. Musk is unraveled (as opposed to coming unraveled) and just doesn't care what his public face is. Top people are leaving and being shuffled even if they don't. People waiting for a $35k car will never see one because Tesla can't make one and make a profit on the car. Bonds are in junk territory. The company is burning through cash still. 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. I think the shorters are still in for more profits.
-
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.
SpaceX is not a Tesla company, it is a separate entity that also happens to have Musk as CEO. SpaceX not renewing some contracts wouldn't really affect Tesla.
-
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
-
So for those that have commented on this thread, have we been gifted yet another amazing entry point?!?
$263
I continue to buy dips. I've been slowly accumulating for about five years now. Good chunk of my shares were bought sub $200. I'm happy for short term volatility in response to what amounts to nothing as it does offer another opportunity to snag shares at a discount. Professional reviews for Model 3 have all been favorable to glowing, customer satisfaction is high, and production is ramping. Model 3 and Model X also had early quality issues that were quickly resolved. Same progression has occurred with Model 3 and production is now ramping successfully. I predict Q3 will be just to either side of break even and Q4 will be solidly profitable. SP will be over $400 by end of January 2019 in just 5 short months time. Others will accuse me of being the one smoking the weed, but all will paly out in good time.
To quote Gandhi, "First they ignore you, then the laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win." I'd say Tesla is nearing the height of step 3 as the most shorted stock in the US. Disruption of this scale was never going to be easy or cheap.
-
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 you go back in time and have followed Tesla then you know that Tesla has been on the verge of collapse and imminent bankruptcy for about 12 years. I'm sure this time is for real.
-
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
Indeed I'm wishing I'd paid more attention to the threads on crypto, especially the posts by crypto bears ;-)
-
You already own Tesla if you have your investments in the Total Stock Market Index fund.
I don't recommend overweighting in this company (nor any company), and no one has any idea what's going to happen next.
Aside from that I hope the company manages to do well, and upends the auto market / solar/ battery storage market
"Vanguard Total Stock Market Index (VTSMX)
The Vanguard Total Stock Market Index fund was established in April 1992. The fund's primary objective to track the performance of its benchmark index CRSP US Total Market Index. This objective is accomplished by investing in equity securities of large, mid and small-cap companies across both growth and value investing styles. The fund invests primarily in U.S. stocks.
As of June 29, 2018, Vanguard Total Stock Market Index holds 3.19 million shares of Tesla, which amounts to 1.88% of the company's total shares. VTSMX's ownership in Tesla accounts for 0.16% of the total assets. As of August 7, 2018, the fund has $725.8 billion in assets under management and requires a minimum of $3,000 to invest. Lastly, VTSMX has a five-year annualized return of 12.80% and an expense ratio of 0.14%.
"
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/090215/4-mutual-funds-hold-tesla-stock.asp
-
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 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.
Tesla model 3 website still says the standard range battery is 4-7 months out. I don't see the Model 3 doing huge volumes while carrying a 50k+ price tag so I think the "profitable in Q4" predictions are questionable.
-
From a value investor perspective, no it's not. Will the hype translate into a surge in price? Definitely possible. But, in my view, there are a lot of good companies out there that are doing very well, have positive earning trends, and carry less risk (and that means probably less upside).
-
I buy Tesla stock every month....through my purchase of VTSAX.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Indeed, my tesla bull co-worker (who is long in the stock) has admitted that he is irrational about only one thing: the Dallas Cowboys. But a recent self-assessment made him think he was dangerously close to the border with 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.
I disagree. If anything, it goes to show some why they shouldn't invest in individual stocks that are difficult-to-impossible to value using traditional valuation methods. Some may look at Tesla and see so many high-value intangibles (as you've pointed out) and say it's stock will soar. That's not a unique view -- it wouldn't be trading at ~ $300 if many didn't have that view. Others, myself included, are just fine sticking with companies whose valuation they can understand.
-
The difference with Tesla is that there is a certain ideological component. People are buying stock to support the vision, not to get their money back in the short time. So it defies the traditional assessment of the value based on Financials.
Sent from my Hisense A2T using Tapatalk
-
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.
I don't understand why you wouldn't earn at least something if the price fell to anything between $0 and $43.12.
Regardless, given that it's at $300 now, that seems risky. A lot of other things might happen if the stock were to drop precipitously but not bottom out.
-
Those put options just became a whole lot more valuable.
-
Could be historic buying opportunity.
-
Could be historic buying opportunity.
Get rid of Musk and perhaps...
-
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 think they meant buying opportunity for put options! Getting rid of Musk might backfire if that's the strategy.
Do you guys think the SEC will win its case to ban Mr Musk from acting as a Director or Executive on any public corporation?
-
I expect he will be heavily fined and scolded for his tweets.
-
My crystal ball is clear now, don't invest in Telsa on March 22, 2018.
Just wait, sometime during September the price will drop into the $270s.
And for the future, oh, my crystal ball just clouded up!
-
This story is riveting. I can only imagine the movie that will be made about this sometime in the future will be quite good.
CNBC is reporting that Musk refused the SEC settlement which would have the following conditions:
- required Musk neither admit or deny culpability
- Barred Musk as Chairman for 2 yrs
- Fined Musk and Tesla
- Required company to hire 2 new independent directors
I don't think this is confirmed but that is what is being reported. This seems like a no brainer compared to possibly being removed from Tesla and never serving as head of a public company.
I wonder if it is a rational decision (they believe that they have a clear win) or irrational (his ego wouldn't let him not deny the charges).
-
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 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 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.
Seriously? If that deal went through, Musk would have remained CEO, and it could have inflicted the searing revenge on the shorts Musk was going for in the first place.
All the evidence the SEC cited came from Musk, himself, and from his board members. They don't just have a smoking gun. They also have all the bullets recovered from the victims, and they know where all the dead bodies are buried, and have already dug them up.
If the deal was, in fact, offered by the SEC, and then rejected by Musk, I can't imagine the SEC doing anything other than loading up the biggest guns they have, and firing, point-blank, right at Musk.
The SEC's suit is a civil matter. They don't have to prove motive. All they have to do is prove the facts. And most of those facts (all of those facts?) have already been confirmed publicly by Musk, himself. He has no chance whatsoever of casting any shadow of a doubt on the facts of the case. If it goes to trial, he will lose spectacularly.
I can only imagine that the DOJ is waiting for a nod from the SEC to suggest that there might be criminal charges where motive might also be just as easily provable. Rejecting an SEC offer (if they even made one) is not likely to endear the SEC to the mess he's put himself into.
If the SEC looks at this holistically, they might surmise that barring Musk from board and officer positions for life might do substantially more harm to shareholders of Tesla and Spacex than Musk has already done. That might be Musk's only hope left, but I think relying on that would seem an extremely weak strategy on Musk's part.
The SEC and the DOJ are enforcement agencies. They accomplish their goals by making high-profile examples to send a message to all the other CEOs of public companies. What kind of message would it send if they walked away now? Musk has offered them all they need in order to make him a poster-child of bad behavior on a silver platter. I think pummeling Musk into a gooey splat mark on the sidewalk is a much more likely outcome; especially likely if the SEC actually did extend that sweetheart olive branch which was then rejected by Musk.
-
I read that part of the plea was that he would get a 2 year ban from being Chairman of the board at Tesla. I would say that's more than a slap on the wrist.
Agreed on the enforcement action likely not being pleasant. I doubt Musk is connected enough in Washington to avoid the pull power of those agencies.
The good news for stockholders is that hopefully this will drag out for years and Tesla will be able to mature enough during that time that losing Musk may not be a big deal. 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 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.
-
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 sure he has skills I don't have, but I have the brainpower not to use Twitter to violate SEC rules and risk everything I ever worked for. I also know better than to waste my time arguing with internet trolls, depriving myself of sleep, as Musk seems fond of doing.
I've noticed many millions of people are now unable to distinguish having money from (a) being brilliant, or (b) being a great leader. To call a rich person a moron is considered an oxymoron. To call any business owner a poor leader (other than our own bosses) is considered an expression of jealousy. I think it's because media overexposure has made us think of leaders, smart people, or "winners" as overly-dramatic characters. Those roles are always case as over-dramatic people.
However, we should all know it is entirely possible to acquire a shit-ton of wealth simply by being in the right place at the right time or being otherwise lucky. Musk's connections to venture capital explain his ability to found/fund companies a lot better than his apparent skill at running firms or generating organic growth. The guy also loves risk. I estimate 50/50 odds whether he ends up the next Thomas Edison or in jail.
Musk's companies achieved amazing technical feats because they are some of the last American companies to actually invest lots of money into R&D rather than dividends, buybacks, and compensation. Musk's alleged brilliance might just be a result of that budget allocation. Hire 1,000 of the smartest engineers in the U.S. and they will land a rocket vertically.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
I agree with most of what you posted but I don't think he's blind to it. I think his hubris is such that he feels above the law because he is trying to save mankind. This is about his ego and narcissism. He doesn't understand a basic filing with the SEC is required to share the information in his tweet thus showing his ignorance? I'm just not sure of this. In my opinion it's either:
1. Willful Ignorance: He just can't be bothered to understand and follow the rules (Showing his hubris).
2. He knew better and felt so compelled to f*ck the shorts he felt he could get away with it (cognitive dissonance?). (Still showing his hubris).
Either way, what he did was Fraud according to the SEC. I think history won't be kind to him. I believe he needs to go to jail. There were many people damaged by his tweet (both long and short!). Hell, Martha Stewart landed in jail for minor insider trading. You could hardly quantify her damage to others based on one trade. Elron cost some investors hundreds of thousands if not millions.
The DOJ doesn't "follow" the lead of the SEC. Elron opened the door and unwittingly invited them both in to check out Tesla's books. This isn't going to end well.
It's too bad because he has a lot to offer mankind.
Other problems include:
Who is going to fund the company going forward? He will be unable to raise capital they are going to need in the next six months and I think it will lead to a declaration of bankruptcy by March unless he can find a sugar daddy to come bail him out. I think whoever that may be needs to bring about 20BUSD to the table and understand they are likely to lose most/all of it.
The SEC filing a civil suit will be evidence for the class action law suits to utilize for a payout in big dollars - Just staple it to the lawsuit filing and that's all that is needed.
OSHA, UAW and others are also investigating and filing complaints. People are lined up to take their shots at the company.
This is as ugly as it gets.
This, of course, is all opinion and conjecture on my part.
-
No, no, no. Not right now. I'm not sure Tesla will rebound after news about the SEC.
-
No, no, no. Not right now. I'm not sure Tesla will rebound after news about the SEC.
I hope you're kidding. Right?...
-
Looks like someone changed his mind on the plea-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/business/tesla-musk-sec-settlement.html
-
Looks like someone changed his mind on the plea-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/business/tesla-musk-sec-settlement.html
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.
“The total package of remedies and relief announced today are specifically designed to address the misconduct at issue by strengthening Tesla’s corporate governance and oversight in order to protect investors,” . . .
I actually think the company might be stronger now than it would have been even if Musk had never started that "funding secured" nonsense in the first place. Funny how things work out, eh?
If I were a betting man, I'd bet the stock bounces pretty hard on Monday.
-
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.
Sent from my Hisense A2T using Tapatalk
Where are they going to get funding to continue operating? The loyal base?
If they don't get funding in the next three or four months, they are headed to bankruptcy in my estimation. The effective price will be pennies not zero, but pennies per share.
-
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.
Sure he can raise millions that way. He needs billions though and the loyal base doesn't have billions.
-
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.
-
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.
In the past, they have just raised funds through bond offerings and stock dilution. Stock dilution through an offering is not going to happen. The bonds on the company have gone to 80 cents on the dollar. That is junk bond status. A direct reflection of their financial status. In the past they have been able to raise funds. Profitability being positive doesn't necessarily imply a positive cash flow - you can still burn cash while showing a profit. I don't think they'll sustain either. One quarter maybe. Backlog is down. 900 Million in debt due by March 1st. Just too many obstacles. They need to complete a hail mary with private equity. Don't see it happening. We shall see.
Again, just my opinion. YMMV.
-
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 believe you were quite accurate in your prediction.
-
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.
This is a moot point since they announced the settlement, but my point wasn't that Tesla was ready right now for another CEO, but that in the few years I thought they could drag it out, Tesla could be at that point. Swapping CEOs right now would be disastrous for all the reasons you mentioned.
There is still the criminal side of this, which hasn't been announced yet either confirming or denying that the DOJ will pursue this. Knowing the government, I would expect another settlement to come of that part, and it may include some jail time. Hopefully that can be dragged out for a few years.
The fact that Musk didn't have to admit guilt for the SEC portion does actually help him on the DOJ portion. If he came out admitting guilt, the DOJ would have a real easy time convicting.
-
Ring a bell?
https://thereformedbroker.com/2018/09/28/the-nine-essential-conditions-to-commit-massive-fraud-2/
-
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.
-
Looks like someone changed his mind on the plea-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/business/tesla-musk-sec-settlement.html
I look at it completely the opposite. The SEC backed down and settled for the bare minimum mea culpa. It's a sign of the times. Those who run roughshod over the rules and established norms are the winners. Those who stay within the lines are the suckers.
-
Ring a bell?
https://thereformedbroker.com/2018/09/28/the-nine-essential-conditions-to-commit-massive-fraud-2/
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.
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.
-
Ring a bell?
https://thereformedbroker.com/2018/09/28/the-nine-essential-conditions-to-commit-massive-fraud-2/
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.
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.
You can bet if they file for bankruptcy, there will be a full investigation by the DOJ and SEC. You're right about how it usually ends. Bankruptcy then investigation and charges. The tweet, in my mind, is the beginning of the end. We shall see.
-
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.
Seems like he’s testing the boundaries of his settlement with the SEC.
This shows his ignorance. Short selling helps with liquidity in the market and more importantly price discovery.
In my estimation he's ignorant when it comes to markets and how to run a business.
-
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.
Simply astonishing.
It looks like he reloaded his revolver, and is determined to shoot all of his remaining toes off.
-
Reading his most recent tirade, it sounds like he's given up. I don't know if that means he's splitting from the board or what, but it's wild.
He's blaming his woes on passive funds' lending shares to short-sellers.
-
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.
But yeah, it's definitely wild, to say the least.
-
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?
Earlier on I was thinking that the SEC wanted to settle because they thought the company was going to have to declare bankruptcy soon, and they didn't want Musk to use them as a scapegoat when it happened. Well, they got the settlement, but now Musk is trying to use them as a scapegoat anyway. Didn't see that one coming...
-
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.
"Federal courts have thrown out previous SEC settlements if they think the agency is too lenient."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/04/elon-musks-settlement-with-sec-hits-a-snag.html
The best case scenario for Musk is that his settlement with the SEC is approved by a judge. If a judge rules that a trial must proceed, or that the settlement should be harsher, despite the recent SEC settlement, it can only get worse for Musk and, possibly, for Tesla shareholders. His latest tweets are not helping his cause; whatever the hell that cause might be.
IMO, one way or the other, Musk is gone from the COB position for at least three years; possibly longer. If it goes to trial, Musk doesn't have a leg to stand on. He will almost certainly be stripped of any possibility of serving on the BOD as well, if a trial goes forward. My notoriously foggy crystal ball predicts that Tesla shareholders will be fine with that, if that's the only adjustment to the current SEC settlement.
Personally, I think the judge is acting well within the pubic's best interests in questioning the SEC settlement.
-
Looking towards a $275 opening.
-
The SEC was motivated to be "lenient" in the settlement because it considered the 80% of shares owned by people not named "Elon Musk."
-
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.
Hmm. That proved prophetic.
-
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.
If you read the comments on the tweet, I would estimate that about 40% of them are from shareholders begging him to stop because he's hurting the longs. YCMTSU.
He's a self-absorbed individual that thinks he's above the law. Again, I don't think this will end well.
-
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.
-
Interesting how none of the naysayers showed up again after 3Q earnings.
-
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've held. $2000/share in 5 years. Tesla is a tech company that sells cars. It's not appropriate to compare Tesla to GM. GM is strictly an auto company. Uber's value is over $50 billion, but Tesla is going to use its existing (and future) fleet of cars to dominate Uber with automated ride sharing. GM has invested in Lyft, but they are years behind Tesla in infrastructure. Even if you did a straight comparison in the auto space, GM can't come close to Tesla on Gross Profit or sales in the categories Tesla already occupies. GM's main product line is the combustion engine. It has billions in assets tied up in that infrastructure. It's bound to its dealer network. I.E. It has every incentive to not fully compete. Tesla still has a long future product line in ride sharing, trucks, manufacturing technology, home energy, utilities, superchargers, and obviously partnerships with SpaceX. In the long run, it's already over.
-
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? :)
Sure. I wasn't interested enough to comment. Some other people seemed Really Committed to the thread in the meantime.
*shrug*
-
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.
Tesla has some pretty big advantages for the EV market. They have a high volume (possibly 50% of all EV cells by capacity) source of high quality batteries/cells at a very good price, and that capacity can be ramped pretty rapidly. GM buys cells from LG, and there have been many reports of shortages. GM has some joint ventures in China, but Tesla will be the first foreign automaker to be full owners of their China factory.
If you want an EV that can drive across the USA, you either buy a Tesla and use Superchargers at a mild time penalty charging compared to ICE vehicles - or you take a huge time penalty charging with any other EV.
Despite all the moaning about missed targets, Tesla has ramped the Model 3 to production rates >4000 vehicles per week and profitability. The Bolt, once touted as real competition for Tesla and launched the prior year on an existing assembly line is being produced at maybe 200-300 vehicles per week.
Tesla had losses of ~$2Billion in 2017. GM had losses of ~$4Billion in 2017.
The "GM has 10x more revenue" might have been accurate last year. If you look at 3Q18 - GM only has ~5x more revenue than Tesla.
If Tesla keeps their ~50% growth rate for 4 more years, they will reach GM revenues. "Some point in the future" is coming fast.
Will Tesla continue to execute well enough? I don't know - but I can see how a compelling story can be written.
Disclosure: I don't own any individual stocks. Just broad based index funds.
-
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.
-
The Wild Card......
VW
As part of the Dieselgate settlement, they have to set up (and are doing it quickly) a nationwide charging network. Expect a floodgate of VW electric models to open at some point. VW knows how to build cars. Like....no.....really. They do.
-
That loss in 2017 for GM was related to getting out of the European car manufacturing business, i.e. the sale of European Opel-Vauxhall business.
Otherwise the company is very profitable. Also something happened that year where the Tax expense equaled the Income before tax. I'm guessing that's related to deferred tax assets that may no longer be assets as a result of the tax law changes.
-
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.
Please show your math for the 7 or 8 years, using the existing revenue growth rate for Tesla and projecting forward. I already did it for vehicle count, and that was ~4 years to match GM. If you expect the growth rate to slow, please give a rationale.
Note again that 3Q2018, GM only had 5x the revenue of Tesla.
-
Tesla has their data priced in. Gm may have more assets, but they don't have the millions of miles of data log, camera output radar, driver decision etc all synchronized and reused to train their neural network.
Tesla will be selling 250000 car in 2018. If every car runs 10000 miles per year, they will be generating 2.5 billions of miles of data loggin 2019. And this without counting car produced before 2018 and during 2019.
Data is the new oil. Tesla should be worth much more just for their data.
No other car company comes even close to this or has an infrastructure in place to access data remotely and reintegrated in the ai training.
Why do you think they are asking driver for confirmation of lane change in the latest release? Is not only legal issue . They are validating, labeling the data using their customer. Is brilliant. Every time a driver confirm, you create a positive test scenario for training validated by a human. Every time the driver do not confirm, they create a negative test scenario validated by a human for further training.
They know software and AI. Other car companies have no ideas. They are reactive, Tesla is disruptive.
It will be fascinating to see.
Sent from my Hisense A2T using Tapatalk
-
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)
-
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)
As much as I admire Elon and the accomplishments of SpaceX (we went to see the Falcon Heavy launch in person) - that's a different company which only makes maybe 2 product items (rockets, Dragon capsules) per month.
Tesla makes maybe 30,000 items (cars) per month.
GM makes 800,000 items (cars) per month.
Quantity has a quality all its own.
-
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.
Alright, time to circle back one last time on the predictions made in March 2018. I predicted...
1) Tesla would have one or two profitable qtrs in 2018. Check, Tesla was profitable by good margins in both Q3 and Q4.
2) Tesla would sell over 250,000 vehicles in 2018. Check, Tesla ended in 2018 having sold just over 255,000 vehicles (150% YOY growth)
3) Stock price over $400. A miss, the stock price today sits at $319. Obviously Tesla has the least direct control over this one. The stock remains heavily shorted, despite Tesla's dismantling of the bear arguments over the M3 production ramp, sustained demand, and profitability. Macro environment (China trade dispute, government shutdown, Fed rate hikes) have also been a drag. Where the stock may very well have been over-valued 3 years ago, I see current prices as an excellent buying opportunity. It's more clear than ever that EVs are the future and Tesla will be the leader in that transition for years to come. Bears will continue to move the goal posts and offer proclamations of Tesla's imminent demise, as they have over the past decade.
-
Regarding prediction #3, I don't think Tesla or the shorts have control over the stock price. It is more a function of investors' risk appetite at any given time than it is a function of performance metrics like revenue or profit. E.g. does it make sense to say TSLA is a bargain or overpriced because it has a PE of negative 54? For money losing companies, it's the future that matters, and without past performance to guide us the future stock price is a guess. Perhaps the tariff wars gave Chinese EV manufacturers a permanent worldwide lead, and the sub-$400 stock price is based on lowered expectations. Or perhaps by going through "manufacturing hell" TSLA has made the down payment on a profit-making machine. Pick your narrarive, but the specific numbers hardly matter. That's what makes it a speculation.
-
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!
-
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!
In fairness to the bears, Tesla does bear a striking resemblance to two bankrupt clean energy companies who produced more hype and media attention than products - Solyndra and Raser Technologies. And, in fairness, there are incentives for founders to creating a company on the basis of a large stock-funded bet on one technical path that has a miniscule probability of panning out. And, finally, you can win a bearish bet even if you were wrong about everything and a "risk off" market correction occurs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://phys.org/news/2009-04-hummer-mpg.amp&ved=2ahUKEwim2cPd1KXgAhUEVK0KHWcpAXQQFjAJegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw1jB24sJh8bHOWTAgkKM_XJ&cf=1 (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://phys.org/news/2009-04-hummer-mpg.amp&ved=2ahUKEwim2cPd1KXgAhUEVK0KHWcpAXQQFjAJegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw1jB24sJh8bHOWTAgkKM_XJ&cf=1)
-
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.
-
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 suggest there are issues with Tesla vehicles based on an unreferenced news article, yet the M3 was just rated highest in customer satisfaction per Consumer Reports, beating out the Porsche 911. With nearly 140,000 units sold, Model 3 was also the best-selling premium vehicle (including SUVs) in the US for 2018 – the first time in decades an American carmaker has been able to secure the top spot. Tesla's cars are also some of the safest ever made. There were issues with the M3 ramp, but those have largely been addressed. Tesla produced and delivered about 90,000 vehicles in Q4 alone, which is more than they produced all of last year. That is amazing growth.
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 $3.7B 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.).
There is really nothing the White House can do to hurt Tesla at this point. Tesla has already reached the point where it will be phasing out the federal subsidy after reaching the 200,000 vehicles sold domestically milestone. As for China, perhaps you are unaware that Tesla is building Gigafactory #3 in China as we speak and will be selling vehicles manufactured in China to the Chinese market duty free by the end of the year. Yes, there are Chinese EV manufacturers, but none offer the quality of Tesla.
Apparently, Elon's management style is so bad that he is successfully running two companies simultaneously in SpaceX and Tesla. I guess that's also why Tesla was ranked as the 5th best company in the country to work. Just because Elon is demanding does not mean that the majority of employees don't respect him and enjoy working for a cutting edge company with a rewarding mission.
If you're going to hate on Elon and Tesla can we at least ground the discussion in fact and not sentiment.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
That $10B debt number includes all the part inventory, as well as produced, but yet undelivered vehicles. So, while it's technically accurate to call that debt, it really isn't debt in any meaningful sense, as Tesla sells every car it makes at an average profit margin of 20%. Tesla has already announced it has cash on hand to pay its March 2019 bond obligations ($920M). Six months ago every bear was pointing to this March debt repayment deadline as the point of imminent bankruptcy. Again, there is no evidence that Tesla is going to go bankrupt. At this point, even if they needed to raise additional cash, there would be no shortage of deep-pocketed investors willing to invest or buyers for Tesla.
Also, keep in mind that the debt/bankruptcy narrative is only the latest bear boogie-man. As a refresher here are the past arguments:
1) Tesla can't make a compelling EV.
2) Nobody will buy an EV.
3) Tesla can't mass produce a compelling EV.
4) The demand will dry up.
5) Tesla can't turn a profit
Probably missing a few in there, but the argument now is...okay, sure Tesla can make a compelling EV, profitability, in mass number, that people are lining up to buy, but they're going bankrupt any day now. Doesn't compute...
Keep in mind Tesla has accomplished this with virtually zero advertising or marketing budget. Imagine the demand if they were actively marketing their cars. The reason they aren't spending on advertisement is that can't keep pace with current demand.
It is my understanding that SpaceX is profitable. The flamethrower was unneccessary, but I doubt Elon invested any real amount of time to it. As for the boring company, only time will tell if that's a winner or not. As a Tesla investor would I prefer Elon devote 100% of his time to Tesla (and stay off Twitter), absolutely. Do I think Tesla is doomed to failure because it's not Elon's sole focus, absolutely not.
We keep having forest vs tree dicussions it seems to me. Bears keep pointing to a few dead trees, but can't see the healthy (and growing) forest that surrounds them.
-
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.
Once again, what proof can you offer to back the claim that Elon is firing employees "willy-nilly"? If Elon was as much of a tyrant as you believe and employees lived in fear of being fired at any moment, would Tesla be ranked the 5th best company in the country to work? And culling 7% of the workforce to improve efficiency and profitability is not "willy-nilly" IMO.
I think I can disprove your statement about Elon being a detriment to Tesla in one simple thought experiment? If Elon Musk were to die and you were given 24-hr notice before his passing was made public, would you buy or sell Tesla stock with your insider knowledge??
No doubt in my mind that if Elon died tomorrow the stock price would drop 25-50% in an instant with little short-term rebound. Something happening to Elon is really the only thing that gives me pause when considering my TSLA position.
-
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...
-
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...
The other thing that changed over the past couple of years is a lot more individual investors bought a lot more of the notoriously volatile TSLA stock. Now they fear a decline. Perhaps the bias is simply that fear sells.
Also, have you noticed how much of the "news" is about what some influencer tweeted? This is probably due to the fact there are so few journalists left, so "news" organizations cover the cheapest, least time-consuming things possible, rather than attempting to tell complicated or investigative stories via smartphone. You don't have to spend time explaining EBITDA coverage or corporate debt restructuring when the story is about someone saying something stupid on social media.
Anyway, the news about Tesla tweets has painted a picture of incompetence, while the company's progress is the opposite.
-
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.
-
Everything, except perhaps the bit about revenue growth and profitability....
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
An anecdotal third party account of one interaction between Musk and an employee. Assuming this account is even true, I would take the company's ranking among the best places to work in the country, which surveys a large cross-section of Tesla employees over this singular account. Also, as stated by others, even assholes can be wildly successful at running companies.
You didn't respond to my hypothetical. Are you scooping up Tesla stock with insider knowledge of Elon's passing?
-
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."
-
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."
And yet Tesla delivered more vehicles in Q4 of 2018 than they did in all of 2017. No company growing this fast isn't going to experience growing pains. The question is not wether or not problems will arise (they will), but can the company correct and continually improve. Tesla has overcome every obstacle to date, not always as efficiently or as timely as I would like, but overcome and continued to expand none-the-less. Again, forest vs trees here.
-
I hope you're right.
But we don't know for sure. I still think that Musk is now an obstacle to the success based on what I'm reading from the journalists.
Not knowing is why I would never invest in a single company stock, and choose to go with the Total Stock Market Index.
I own Tesla as a result of owning the index.
I still want Tesla to succeed and disrupt the whole gasoline/petroleum/auto industrial complex.
-
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).
I posted several facts, numbers, links, etc. above. My original post yesterday was me following up on actual measurable predictions I made six months ago. If you read the last 20 posts on this thread it is the bear posters relying on sentiment, anecdotal evidence, and gut feelings. Your comparison to Bitcoin was shallow and poor IMO. Tesla actually manufacturers multiple products profitably, has employees, factories, publicly traded stock, SEC oversight, etc. Bitcoin is...well Bitcoin.
-
Hopefully I'm not reviving a dead conversation that others want to stay dead, but since Tesla is back in the news these days, it seems as good a time as any. I've been following the news recently and it seems like there is a severe lack of credibility from Tesla these days.
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. I don't think anyone in the autonomy world believes that will happen in 5 years, some probably would say 10 even.
Their quarterly earnings were pretty bad but maybe it's a blip in the road? I've been tracking model 3 sales and it seems like US demand (even with the recently announced $35k version) is lagging. I think they've burned through most of their built up demand. There is no huge pool of people still waiting for model 3s now, just a normal rate of people buying them. They didn't make much money selling $50k+ model 3s but reducing the price to juice the demand means that they'll be losing more money with each car sold.
Musk said they'd offer tesla insurance next month. I'm not even sure what to say about that.
Are they really expanding their service centers that they need to in order to maintain all the new cars they've sold?
They almost closed all of the stores last month before doing an about face.
I don't doubt that there are lots of people who like their Teslas (I know a few). I also don't doubt that they would be a fine niche automaker selling 50k to 150k cars per year without Musk. But they are severely overvalued at their current share price if that's their fate.
-
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.
-
Just another buying opportunity.
*chuckles*
-
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.
Okay, sorry, I saw next year as "in one year". Saying that you'll have level 5, next year, means it has to be mostly solved now. I understand software guys think they can go fast and break things, but seriously, it needs a lot of testing (like months and months) before you can just say "go for it" and leave it up to a car.
Looked it up and his quote was "If you fast forward a year, maybe a year three months, we'll have over a million robo-taxis on the road." So basically my original assertion was correct.
-
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’m curious what the Colorado poster is thinking these days
-
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.
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?
-
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?
-
Brothers and sisters, prepare your offerings for The Telsa Tithe (http://thecorpraider.com/2018/05/03/the-telsa-tithe/).
EDIT: Probably wasting some thunder for planned update of the above (year old) TSLA post but damn that takes me forever. It is pretty interesting to me that Markel is working with Telsa on the insurance product. Could be laying off a lot of the actual premiums, but still the TSLAQ people on twitter thought it was a complete oddball fantasy that Elon threw out off the cuff and then, basically the next day, they file with regulators in California to roll out a product with a legitimate outfit handling the insurance blocking and tackling. The move has some echoes (to me) of the historical model of progressive insurance: superior data resulting in better underwriting as the core competency. I wonder if Gayner's deputy Saurabh (formerly of google/host of the investors at google youtube series, and poster on COBF) was involved in putting this on Markel's radar.
-
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.
-
We're now at half of 420 USD per share, the price that Elon wanted to take the company private at (Tweet on August 7th). Funding secured.
That's less than a year ago. How long until we lose another 210 Dollars / share? Elon now talking about 'hardcore' belt tightening ahead of Tesla to stay profitable/alive.
http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2019/05/hardcore-belt-tightening-a-must-says-teslas-musk/
This visionary guy who supposedly thinks in decades is managing this company in a paycheck-to-paycheck, quarter-by-quarter style, changing course 180 degrees overnight.
-
Quoting Elon Musk:
"That is why, going forward, all expenses of any kind anywhere in the world, including parts, salary, travel expenses, rent, literally every payment that leaves our bank account must be reviewed, confirmed as critical and the top of every page of outgoing payments signed by our CFO.
I will personally review and sign every 10th page."
This man has lost the plot. Sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare to work at Tesla these days.
And for that reason, I'm out.
-
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.
-
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.
Superchargers aren't worth that much. 20% of tesla's value is $8 billion. Tesla's site says there are 12888 superchargers that have been deployed. $8 billion/12888 is $620k per charger. The DOE estimates the cost of a level 3 charger to be between $4 and $50k depending on the amount of prep work/site upgrades to bring power to a location, and that Tesla doesn't own the land , but merely leases it. If you are valuing tesla's bankruptcy value on the value of their super charger network, it's probably more like $258 million (12888*20k), which is less than 1% of it's current market cap.
Their brand may have a bit more value, but that said, it still probably isn't worth anything near to their current market cap.
I've made a bit of money with buying and selling options on Tesla. My general sense is that the stock price will be less than $200/share fairly soon and is currently in the process of investors re-evaluating their growth story (realizing that stratospheric growth and profitability is getting less and less likely) and bringing the lofty price back down closer to a more fundamental valuation of their stock (double digit stock price).
-
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
One can buy a put option today for $120 that will go up 316% if Morgan Stanley is correct and TSLA closes at $10 on January 15, 2021. If they go to zero by then, the return would be 1150%.
Someone talk me out of gambling.
-
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
Actually, Morgan Stanley is a hold and $10 is their worst bear case scenario from one analyst. $391 is their bull. Morgan Stanley also underwrote Tesla's bond a few weeks ago so I take their analysis with a grain of salt.
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.
The bright side is those operating expenses have been flat per quarter at $1 billion for over a year. At 90k cars, if they're not profitable, they're definitely cashflow positive. So Qtr 2 is a big deal for the company. Not too worried about cash. They have over $4 billion which at $250 million cash Qtr 1 burn rate a month ( -$910m one time debt payment) would still last a very long time without being cash flow positive. Little risk of near term insolvency, imo. Lasting long enough for the Shanghai factory to be built and start producing behind the tariffs is a big deal.
Edit: I'm long Tesla. I'm eating crow on the near term growth story. I still believe in the company's long term prospects, but I would never recommend someone else either invest or short it. The vicissitudes are unreal.
-
So, on the sales volume, there are several mitigating factors:
If you start shipping cars to Europe and China, you're going to have more vehicles... on ships. Since Tesla doesn't count a sale til delivery happens, they're going to have a lot more cars in shipment. That probably accounts for ~10k vehicles.
The Model S/X production line was shut down for awhile, resulting in the new version with the Model 3 style front motor and overall significant performance improvements (overall range, acceleration, higher Supercharger power usable, noticeably better recharging whether Supercharger or not in terms of miles of range recharged per minute.)
Many Tesla enthusiasts were aware of the upcoming refresh, and at least some number held off buying. I certainly would have if I were rich and wanted a Model S or X.
Apparently Panasonic was still unable to supply as many Model 3 cells as Tesla wanted.
-
I thought the cells were coming from the gigafactory
-
Apparently Panasonic was still unable to supply as many Model 3 cells as Tesla wanted.
This factory?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-solar-exclusive/exclusive-teslas-solar-factory-is-exporting-most-of-its-cells-document-idUSKCN1SL1H5 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-solar-exclusive/exclusive-teslas-solar-factory-is-exporting-most-of-its-cells-document-idUSKCN1SL1H5)
-
I thought the cells were coming from the gigafactory
Model 3 cells are being produced by Panasonic in the Gigafactory. Tesla owns the factory and makes the packs after Panasonic supplies the cells. Another company colocated in the Gigafactory supplies the "cans" to Panasonic for the outer shell of the cells.
-
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.
-
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.
Tax credits get cut in half again on July 1, so that may push more sales forward into Q2, along with the improved Model S & X motors/range/supercharging speed.
-
Another profit!
-
Yeah, the big Tesla fan in the office (he both drives one and has a long position) was crowing about their latest earnings release today.
-
I hope Tesla succeeds and upends transportation. I just am very critical of Elon Musk's ad hoc managerial skills.
-
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.
-
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.
The point of trading in and out with the swing shares is to take advantage of the extreme volatility to lower my cost basis and ultimately accumulate some more shares. Strategy comes with a risk of being caught out when/if the stock takes off, but core shares ensure I don't miss the pay day. Even if the stock takes off though, it will establish a new range of volatility to swing trade. Suppose there's also breaking the "boredom" of a straight buy and hold. Core shares are approximately 90% of shares and I swing trade with 10% of shares.
-
I've held onto my shares and increased my position throughout the year. I'm much more confident in the stock than I was in May. There's huge growth potential in their upcoming product lines, and their cash balance and margins are increasing. The auto market is clearly being disrupted as EV demand surges globally, and Tesla is burgeoning so many other types of income streams that failure seems very unlikely.
-
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 tease the Tesla bull in the office that he ought to trim his risk profile by moving into crypto-
-
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?
Anyone waiting for consistent profitability will miss the biggest gains. That's why its investing...
-
Tesla shorts getting a bit of a squeeze this morning as stock approaches all time high. But hey, I'm sure bankruptcy is imminent. Ignore the Model 3s rolling off the floor from a China factory that was a dirt field in January.
-
Elon has, without a doubt, been a brilliant magician. I was a huge skeptic but don't know if I'd bet against him at this point.
-
Tesla closes at ATH today at $393.15. Bankruptcy is imminent.
-
I have to admit, I'm rather astonished to see it above $400/share. It's gotten within 5% of the $420 line from Musk's bizarre tweet last summer.
-
The unusually high short float is getting squeezed at the same time there's general optimism in the company.
1. China factory is producing and delivering cars.
2. The price and range of the Porsche Taycan has highlighted Tesla's powertrain advantage. The story has been that competition is coming, but it seems more like competition hasn't quite figured out how to produce a compelling EV and won't succeed for maybe another year.
3. Balance sheet has been cleaned up throughout the year.
4. The Model Y is ahead of schedule in production.
Q1 2020 is a bit of a wildcard, but the full year 2020 seems very bullish. Very likely the company will be added to the S&P 500.
-
Buying Tesla is genuine speculating. But, boy, do I wish I had bought a few shares when TSLA was below 200, about half a year ago . . . .
-
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.
-
Tesla is so far ahead of all others. Most companies are lead by crusty old people who do not want to change. They are rent seeking and want to milk their 90 year old car companies until they are dry with the same old technology and only change if no other choice. They all say they are working on stuff, but not delivering anything reasonably competitive. They purposely make their EV offerings ugly or too expensive to not compete with their highly profitable crappy ICE cars.
Tesla is the amazon of cars and I wish I invested a little in AMZN in the early 2000s.
-
Ok...only read heading and not one post.
Short answer no..
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.
-
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.
-
As an internet elder, I recall reading the same rationales for Citigroup, AOL, Yahoo, and more.
As an internet elder, you should also know that many fortunes were made in each of those companies as well. But asset values require regular reevaluation. You do you. I'm not advising any investments. Everyone is free to choose index funds only to match the total market, and free to apparently be emboldened to make judgments about those who don't as if they plucked the "Index is the Answer" fruit from the tree of knowledge when the truth is that it's group think, especially on this forum.
-
This has been a fun ride. Tesla, along with Apple and Google, are sort of holdovers from my pre-indexing days. When I converted to indexing, I sold a bunch of individual stocks including AMZN :(, but kept AAPL and GOOGL partly to avoid the tax hit. I kept TSLA and bought some more during last year's swoon partly because I find it to be the single most fun publicly traded company to follow on earth. Great investing thesis, I know, but I do also believe there's a nontrivial chance it becomes a trillion dollar company sometime this decade and that upside is impossible for me to ignore.
-
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.
Yeah, poor old Nissan was first to the mass market with the Leaf, beating the Model S by a couple years or so and stayed ahead of Tesla in the "cumulative EVs shipped" for quite a few years. Falling by the wayside now - one reason being that (like Nokia) they've refused to update the technology fast enough. My goodness, they're still using passive battery pack cooling, which is just terrible for the lifespan (as demonstrated by actual Nissan pack lifespans.) No educated/sensible consumer would buy a Leaf today - maybe get a cheap lease deal, but that's about it.
-
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.
Fair point. As you can tell I have a strong Silicon Valley/American West Coast bias. Many of the first movers located there, with access to the best software developers, a move-fast culture, and the ability to gain and sustain a foothold with US consumers seem to be relatively durable. At least in the case of Amazon, Apple, and Tesla, their hyper focus on creating a product or experience that consumers love, as opposed to just accept, seems different than the Nokia's of the world, but I'll concede that there's probably some suvivorship bias in that line of thinking.
-
Yes TomTX that's why I bought the Chevrolet Bolt and not the Nissan Leaf. I was surprised that Mrmoneymustache was touting the Nissan Leaf knowing that the battery pack had a poor chance of lasting long.
-
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.
-
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.
That was a deal.
-
Hardly related to the post at all but just to give a laugh, my last car cost £750 and lasted 7 years...I eventually sold it cause my daughters wouldn’t get into it!
Baz
-
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.
-
On a more positive note, TSLA continues to climb and hit a new intra-day high of 471 a minute ago!
-
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?
-
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?
Good thoughts, and valid points. I'm sure insurance companies may play a role too at some point (i.e., cheaper rates for FSD enabled vehicles). I guess I'm reasonably optimistic in the long run, but like you said, no way this happens on Elon's timeframe given the perception war that's going to have to be waged and won jurisdiction by jurisdiction (see fight of dealership model).
-
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.
-
If this crosses $500 today (currently $497) it'll jump another $20 without any friction.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. That of course is absurd for all the same reasons I listed above when comparing the two. I also laid out my TSLA investment thesis above and it has nothing to do with the movement of the stock price. If I cared about the movement of the stock price short term I would have sold at $178 six months ago. People who bring up bitcoin in the context of investment in Tesla are intentionally trying to paint Tesla as a risky gamble, when anyone with a little vision can recognize the change in the wind and a quality product when the see it.
-
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
-
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.
-
the ongoing question is when might TSLA cease to be a good investment?
When the investment thesis no longer holds, I suppose. Of course that will eventually become more of a gray area as the marketplace and competitive landscape shifts. Since I now only buy individual stocks when I have very strong convictions to do so, I'll try to only sell if that's the case as well. I plan to hold indefinitely or at least until 2028 when Elon's compensation plan sunsets.
-
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.
I should have qualified that as a new Leaf.
-
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.
-
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.
In this quote, Roland makes clear he thinks Tesla and Bitcoin are bad investments. So now we can move on.
-
Just punched through $500 for new ATH.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
I thought Tesla was risky until recently. Now I think it's as close to a cinch with a growth company as you can get.
1. Strong brand
2. Huge technology moat
3. Charging infrastructure moat
4. Strong US demand (4-11 weeks wait in the US right now)
5. Shanghai factory ramping in the largest auto market in the world
6. Germany factory in the works for 2021
7. Wrights Law applying to EV manufacturing leading to 25% margins by the end of 2020 (*Sam Korus)
8. Budding multiple income streams in insurance, premium internet, apps, skateboard licensing, energy credits
9. Tesla Energy in California where all new houses built have mandated solar or at least source solar.
10. OEM after OEM EV offerings have been less than adequate including future models not yet released. It makes it more likely Tesla holds market share as worldwide EV sales grow.
11. Hinted for battery investor day that they have a million mile battery and a path to produce a TWh of batteries.
...12. The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow: Tesla Network. Its income potential is so high that projections are ridiculous by default. Might as well write off that potential all together and focus on the core business.
2019 was a proving year for the company and they knocked it out of the park by the end.
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.
Tesla is riding a global EV demand curve up and a manufacturing cost curve down in a much more capital intensive industry than any dot com company. That creates moat. Cisco had a $300 billion market cap on $12 billion in revenue and $2 billion in profits in 2000 or 161x on earnings. I don't think just earnings defined that bubble. It's now a $200 billion market cap with $50 billion in revenue and $11 billion in earnings. Tesla has a path to $75 billion in revenue in 2022 with 25% margins just in their EV sales. Let's say 20% net with an 18x multiple (like Cisco) would be $270 billion market cap in 2022.
-
Companies with great stories and no profitspath 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.
In my opinion, the dot com bubble is not instructive here, other than maybe AMZN dropping from $86 to $10 in the widespread panic, and the importance of keeping a long-term perspective. Tesla will continue to build its moats, reinvesting cash flow rather than booking maximum profit as it sees fit to do so. As a long-term investor, I still don't care about profits right now. I care about them building for the future. Speaking of moats, I'd add Musk himself as one. Setting aside the genius it takes to start a rocket company that lands boosters from scratch, his access to cutting edge technology via that rocket company can also be an asset to Tesla and one that other car companies can't really replicate. An example is Starship's cold-rolled stainless steel body inspiring the Cybertruck's exoskeleton.
-
Companies with great stories and no profitspath 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!
-
Companies with great stories and no profitspath 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!
Ha, I think I remember that Cisco was briefly the world's largest company by market cap. If that were the case here and now for Tesla I would have to sell and wait for the correction. But I'm far less concerned about Tesla having a higher market cap than the combined value of GE and Ford, two competitors that at this point are mostly just squeezing profits out of their legacy factories producing legacy technology. IMO, it's a far cry from thinking that a router maker would take over the world, but sure, I agree that Tesla will have to navigate plenty of execution risk to make good on its current valuation, let alone any further appreciation.
-
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.
-
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.
$17.20 EPS or $3.2 billion in earnings. PE is not a good metric. It varies wildly even among companies in the same industry. Look at Amazon's. Regardless, I think it'll take way less than 20 years to achieve that. I wrote a path to above that in 2022.
-
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.
Yeah, I suppose it's different for me since I first invested in 2013. I'm up a significant amount including the additional shares I bought last year. It doesn't make sense for me to sell for tax purposes, and as I said, this is probably the most fun company to follow in my lifetime (maybe in the history of companies?) and owning a tiny slice of it gives me a decent excuse to follow it daily.
If you are interested in a detailed valuation model, ARK Invest posted theirs publicly to GitHub during last year's stock swoon. They're notable bulls, and I don't think their bull case at $6k/share has any shot in hell of coming to fruition by 2023. It's largely based on the fleet of robotaxis panning out starting in 2021, which I am...uh...not banking on. On the other hand, it seems very likely to me that Tesla will overshoot their bear case which values the company at $597/share in 2023 (certainly not a great CAGR if you're buying in now, but not the bankwuptcy! the shorts constantly claim is imminent). The bear case includes no revenue from autonomy and assumes Tesla's market share of EV sales slips to just 6%, in addition to other overly conservative assumptions. Strangely, neither valuation model seems to include Tesla's energy generation and storage business which Musk has said could eventually rival automotive in size.
-
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.
-
I didn't read all the comments - But I'm pretty sure I'll end up regretting not taking the Tesla gigafactory job I was offered with a 40k Tesla stock equity in 2018.
Seems it's up pretty good even from that short time ago.
-
My 68-year-old dad just ordered a Model Y and is so excited about it he emailed everyone in the family the order specs. I don't remember him so much as telling anyone about a prior car purchase. Ipso facto, good investment :)
-
I watched this Elon Musk interview yesterday. Most interesting from an investment standpoint was confirmation that the acquisition of Maxwell Technologies was very significant to battery advancement including dry electrode manufacturing and increased energy density. Also the advancement in batteries makes ultracapacitors completely unnecessary. He wouldn't say much because they're going to announce at Battery and Powertrain Investor Day in a "few months." Any significant advancement increases their competitive advantages in autos and energy storage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxmO_QuD4Do (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxmO_QuD4Do)
-
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.
-
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).
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.
Very glad you're having a hard time reading.
-
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.
Somtrue. But thebtechnology? Is it a car company or a technology company?
For a decade I looked at Amazon and said it made no sense what it was valued at and then it went to $1 trillion.
That said, not suggesting this in any way has that potential but I agree. Way overpriced here. Don’t know why anyone would commit new money here at $570 / share
-
[malicious taunting]
We can now see your motivations pretty well.
-
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.
-
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.
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?
-
If they can't convert more ICE owners over, their growth model is sunk.
I don't own Tesla beyond what's in VTI. Every person I know and myself is planning to buy an EV after our current ICE vehicles are used up. I have no specific plans, but if Tesla puts out a bullet proof cyber van with good range and Robo Cop looks at reasonable price point I won't be shocked if I bought one. They are the only EV option I am really aware of and I know they'll have been at the game longer than the other major players so I'll definitely give them a good shot at getting my money.
I'm not a Tesla fanboi so if Ford puts a better EV van product or offers the same product at a significantly better price I have no loyalty to Tesla.
I plan to drove my ICE vehicle another 10-15 years as do a bunch of people I know so there is a big wave of new EV owners coming, but it'll take a moment to build.
-
Anecdotes aren't data.
-
Anecdotes aren't data.
And do you have data which directly disputes Retire-Canada's prediction?
Sometimes in the absence of data the next best thing is a combination of anecdotes and a plausible theory.
Even without the anecdotes, I think it would be reasonable to expect many people who currently own ICE vehicles to wait until they've used them up, so to speak, before they buy into the electric market.
Personally, I would like an electric vehicle in the future and I don't have one now, so there's another anecdote.
In any case, I have no idea if Tesla's current valuation makes sense, but I do predict electric vehicle ownership to grow significantly over the next 10 years.
-
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.
Detractors have this weird obsession with the tent. What's wrong with the tent? It's a robust one and car build quality has not been an issue over the past year. SpaceX is also building parts of Starship in a tent. Who gives a shit? To me, it was a clever way for Tesla to address constraints and I'm guessing the faster-than-anticipated tooling for the Model Y means they still need the line in the tent to try to keep up with demand for the Model 3. For shorts, and I know you're not one, it's a pretty dumb way to dismiss the company's technological know-how.
What happened to the automated production (read: robots) Musk kept hyping 2-3 years ago?
For more advanced automation, check out the videos they put out of the China factory, which they built, tooled, and got up and running in less than a year. Does that sound like the tent is really an issue that should reflect poorly on their ability to build advanced production lines? Musk has admitted that the tech is not there yet for complete automation, but I'm wagering Tesla is still far ahead of the traditional OEMs in getting to that point. Check out their progress on the wiring harness, for example.
-
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?
Elon Musk gives high targets. Obviously the comments of the CEO are relevant, but try reading the company's actual filings and not the headlines if you want to discuss it on investment terms. And Tesla admitted the robots were a bottleneck in the Model 3 production line and they had to retool. That was one of their biggest problems to scaling the Model 3 and why it took so long. If you're not current with facts, how can you make determination on the future potential of the company? I have an intuition that Uber is a bad investment so I leave it alone, but I haven't researched it enough to argue why it's a bad investment. If I were a short trader and not an investor, it would make sense to go do that. You seem to have followed Tesla to some extent, but you've been incorrect about production levels and context.
EV software, range, and reliability are only going to improve as they scale. Look at the state of the EVs 5 years ago. Do you honestly believe in 5 years from now, they won't be even more competitive to ICE cars than they are today? Tesla just opened a factory in the largest auto market in the world. My wild guess is market share will increase.
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-24/volkswagen-ceo-confident-he-can-catch-tesla-in-electric-car-race (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-24/volkswagen-ceo-confident-he-can-catch-tesla-in-electric-car-race)
VW clearly sees the writing on the wall. If EV sales were projected to stay at 2% worldwide market share, there'd no need to invest $66 billion to capture a portion of that. Even starting to build battery manufacturing plants totaling 150 GWh of capacity by 2025. Mercedes Benz cut their projected ECQ output by half yesterday because of a battery shortage from LG Chem. Battery supply is a major barrier to entry in the EV space because traditional OEMs haven't built the infrastructure for them nor have their own cell chemistry or pack designs.
-
Speaking of batteries, one possible problem for Tesla is if long range BEV turn out not to be the best choice for the masses:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/i-bought-a-used-chevy-volt-and-you-probably-should-too!/ (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/i-bought-a-used-chevy-volt-and-you-probably-should-too!/)
Of course there range extended hybrid electric vehicles aren't yet nearly as well developed as Tesla's long range BEVs currently are.
-
Speaking of production, I'm thinking that sometime in the next few months Tesla will announce a deal to place another gigafactory somewhere in the Southeastern part of the US, most likely in North Carolina, that will focus on producing the Cybertruck, the Semi, and the Model Y.
I'll further speculate that this is what Florida Man was talking about in his mostly nonsensical comments about Musk/Tesla the other day. I'm guessing he's not involved in the negotiations but has been clued into them, and since NC is a potential battleground state, he's getting ready to claim credit for an announcement. For the record, this is all wild speculation, a bit like my initial bet on Tesla :)
-
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.
Lets go back in the wayback machine to 2013. Tesla produced/sold ~22,400 vehicles. Lets double that: 44,800 vehicles.
Real 2015 production: 51,095.
Well darn. That's way higher than your friend predicted. Lets try another and double it to 102,200
Real 2017 production: 101,027.
Totally failed that, Fell short of doubling by like 2%. Lets double again to 202,000
Real 2019 production: 365,094.
Well, shoot. That's more than tripling in 2 years. Your friend is totally lowballing if you look at the average increase every 2 years.
Maybe it will look better if we go back further! How about 2011?
Real 2011 production: ~1000.
Well, shoot. That went up ~22x in 2 years to 2013.
So, in short - your friend is actually right, yet again your FUD is shown to be false. On average, Tesla is doubling production (if not more) every 2 years.
Going forward, they just built an entire factory from mud field to cars coming off the line in less than a year, and have started on their 3rd major car production factory in Europe. Plus whatever they do in the USA this year for Y, Semi and Roadster.
You've conclusively proven you have an axe to grind and are just flinging out bad data. What's your motivation here?
-
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?
-
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.
-
There would definitely be a short term overreaction. I think the technology has reached an escape velocity and their competitive advantage is very difficult to catch up to. So long term, I don't see a big valuation difference. If he had died before the business model had matured, it would have killed the company tho.
-
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.
-
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.
And that, my friends, is called "moving the goalposts."
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.
Look, I'll be happy to be wrong about this. I'll be happy if they can hit 10m global output by 2030 or whatever the metric is. ICE vehicles are relics and EVs are the future. I just don't think Tesla is a "good investment" (title of this topic) as I don't believe any singular company is a "good investment" for one's portfolio - too risky to have that much in one company.
-
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. 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.
Lets see, you were proven wrong on the revenue claims, then started yammering about your friend being ridiculous for saying Tesla doubled production every two years, got eviscerated thoroughly on that one...
And now another goalpost shift. One might get the impression you have an axe to grind here. Why is that?
-
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.
I doubt he'll leave before his comp plan sunsets in 2028 or until Tesla hits every target in that plan by becoming a $650 billion company, whichever comes sooner. If the stock price stays about where it is for six months, the first of the 12 tranches will vest. Even if it looks linearly unlikely that he'll hit some of the more ambitious targets, I think he'll stick around in case those tranches vest from some nonlinear event, like Tesla being the first to FSD or developing a battery breakthrough that renders ICE vehicles obsolete.
I think he cares a lot about money to the extent that it's an enabler of his ambition to make us a multiplanetary species. It's a strange ambition, but it's also pretty cool, and hopefully it turns out to be lucrative for those of riding the coattails indirectly via TSLA.
-
Good point on the comp plan.
I'll note that we're getting close on the first milestone for payment - market cap of $100B (trailing 6 month and 30 day average) and annual revenue of $20B or EBITDA of $1.5B. We should know for sure on the revenue/EBITDA after the investor call tomorrow.
I'll note that full vesting requires Tesla to be valued over $650B with some really massive revenue and EBITDA increases.
-
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
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. If they had demonstrated that the autonomous production they've being hyping for years was actually viable, then I'd be much more likely to predict that they could keep scaling that quickly.
So, sure, if they can keep doubling production and actually make inroads in market share of the auto industry (and there are some signs pointing to them maxing out demand in the U.S.) then they will still need to make consistent profits - something they haven't yet done. Is that better?
-
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.
Ok, so can you explain what you meant by this? I read it as claiming they have not been doubling output every 2 years.
-W
-
Stock at $
620650 after hours on earnings beat and confirmation of Model Y deliveries this quarter.
Edited: Ok, no more price updates from me, ya'll are aware of Yahoo finance.
-
Some Q4 2019 Letter Highlights:
Cash balance up to $6.3 billion
Model Y deliveries starting Q1 2020 instead of fall 2020. Range increased from 280 to 315 which is a blow to competition
Semi production and deliveries 2020
Guidance for Deliveries to "comfortably exceed 500,000 units" in 2020
Beat estimates on Revenue and Earnings last quarter
-
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.
Cool lets go into the wayback machine to earlier in this thread:
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.
Yeah, that's what you were claiming.
-
At what stock price does Tesla become a good investment?
Closed at $780 today. Continued short squeeze and institutional accumulation in anticipation of S&P 500 inclusion could drive the price over $1,000 in coming days to weeks (not advice). Congrats to the longs who didn't listen to the "experts" and FUD. Congrats to us all on a cleaner energy and transportation future.
-
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.
-
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.
3) Tesla was a great investment for those who bought into the vision at sub $100/share when all the experts were talking about how no one will ever buy a compelling EV. You can't make an EV with enough range. You can make an EV with range for under $40,000. Tesla will be bankrupt in X months. Teslas catch fire and have poor build quality. Tesla sales are reliant solely on subsidies. They'll never be able to mass produce the Model 3. Etc...
The investment only seemed overly risky to those who bought into the FUD and misinformation and failed to see the disruption in the making. Far riskier to invest into dying ICE manufacturers and oil companies at this point.
-
Phew! Just checked, TSLA is in my most heavily invested 401K mutual fund VITSX.
-
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!!
-
Tesla is up about 150% since the start of this thread from March 2018....
-
Tesla is up about 150% since the start of this thread from March 2018....
I've got it at 193% from the date the thread was started. In any case, I'm still expecting a sharp pull-back sometime in the near-term, but I've got no idea when and no interest into trying to guess exactly when, let alone acting on that guess.
-
This valuation is very high for today's activity. Depending on what your projections look like over the next 10 years, $161 billion could still be low.
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.
-
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.
I think the announcement moved TSLA as much any buying by Blackrock. There was very high short interest in TSLA, but would you want to be short if you though a big player like Blackrock was starting to take a major long position? TSLA's chart looks like a classic short squeeze.
-
So far I own 6 shares of Tesla...I've made $3500. Should I take my profits now?
-
So far I own 6 shares of Tesla...I've made $3500. Should I take my profits now?
You've made another $30 since this post, lol
-
Obviously you want to wait until it's higher to take profits.
-
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!!
At one point I thought about aggregating data from Yahoo Finance and SeekingAlpha.com and analyzing the data to see if the stocks being promoted there could be reliably shorted. Remember when dry bulk shippers were the next big thing? Dryships FTW!
-
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.
-
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.
Definitely an active strategy. I’d use options to do bear spreads on the latest flash in the pan being celebrated on the more stupid corners of media and social media. Then write bullish spreads on the total market index to offset the risk of a rising tide. I would call my little hedge fund the Stupid Fund in order to get viral media attention.
-
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 $550 so I've got no skin in this game, but if I was still in it I would have sold it all yesterday.
-
Can someone tell me what % Tesla is of VTI? I had a go at Google and can't get that answer with my limited kungfu. Just curious how much I own.
-
Can someone tell me what % Tesla is of VTI? I had a go at Google and can't get that answer with my limited kungfu. Just curious how much I own.
If it's anything like my Vanguard total Stock Index Fund (VITSX) it's probably around 0.19%
Edit: yes, it is.
Tesla is on the 90-120 holding page with a market value of 1.699 B$ . Total VTI market value 897.6 B$
https://investor.vanguard.com/etf/profile/overview/VTI/portfolio-holdings
-
If it's anything like my Vanguard total Stock Index Fund (VITSX) it's probably around 0.19%
Thank you.
-
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.
I guess it was just a temporary top. Too many people thinking TSLA is gonna take over the electrical car world.
I bought back in yesterday morning, looks like the consolidation between $700-800 is over and this is running back up to new highs. Wouldn't surprise me to see at least $1,500 before the bull run in TSLA is over for a little while.
-
Dammit, another 10% pop. I'm definitely feeling some FOMO here.
-
Dammit, another 10% pop. I'm definitely feeling some FOMO here.
Right? I've never bought an individual stock but the day it dropped under $180 I was in the process of opening a Robin Hood account just to buy TSLA. I stopped and thought "what am I doing, this isn't part of my IPS".
8 months later...
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.
-
Don't jump into any stock just because it's popping. Do your research. Tesla may get cut in half next week. Or shoot passed $1000/share. Too hard to tell in the short term.
Long term, I think Tesla is an incredible opportunity so I'm holding for years unless the company stops being a leader in technology. Last week, Tesla increased the range of the S and X by 16% to 390/351 miles, respectively. The Model Y will start delivering in March with 315 miles with a dual motor. So far the competition is pathetic in comparison.
-
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.
If I had gone through with it the decision would have been mentally categorized as gambling, not investing. I like Tesla as a company but I have no idea what they're worth.
-
I tease the Tesla bull in the office that he ought to trim his risk profile by moving into crypto-
What’s the latest on this?
-
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.
How are things going?
-
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.
Do you think we see a sizeable pullback in share price from $1000? Are we in BYND territory here? Trying to protect profits but also not be short sighted
-
Wow this thread died 😁
-
After the initial price spike, it's just not that interesting ;)
It's likely to continue being a volatile stock, but even with the recent downtrend (as the whole market is doing) - it's over $700 when it was ~$180 ~6 months ago.
-
I feel like my buy opportunity might be back sooner than expected. I'd like to get in below $500
-
Haven’t really been following this thread, but this podcast I found very informative through the lens of the classic value investor: https://overcast.fm/+QyZ322bsA
-
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.
-
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.
I'm excited to actually buy in, did not expect a buy opportunity to come so quickly
-
Anyone bought any (more) yet? I’m still waiting for further pullback. May never get it but I suspect we will
-
Not much to say, really. I'm expecting a big dip post Q1 earnings, but that's 70% a defense mechanism to prepare me for the drop. Still holding for the long-term. Check back in 2024 or sooner if it goes bankwupt.
-
Anyone bought any (more) yet? I’m still waiting for further pullback. May never get it but I suspect we will
Bought 60 more shares between 630-650 on the last big drop. That brings me to about 600 shares. overall cost basis is ~240
-
The gains are nice, but isn't the 30% decline in two weeks the sign of an investment that is not appropriate for many?
-
The gains are nice, but isn't the 30% decline in two weeks the sign of an investment that is not appropriate for many?
Investing in individual stocks 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.
-
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.
I would too, if an EV was $20,000 with a 500 mile range. It isn't, yet.
Don't get me wrong, I actually put down $100 for a Cybertruck. I just mean your average Joe and Jane working 7am to 5pm shift at the Waffle house are not going to be buying a $40,000 EV when they can get a $20,000 car and $1.70 gas.
-
Going to be getting a lot cheaper soon. How long will it be cheaper? Remains to be seen
-
Dammit, another 10% pop. I'm definitely feeling some FOMO here.
Throw back thursday to when TSLA was pushing 1000
-
It's amazing how expensive it was, and equally amazing how expensive it would have been to short.
Financial advisor told me he just reminds everyone that they don't have to be right on this one company, there are thousands of other ways to make money.
-
Opportunity presenting itself soon.
Ive been selling puts below $200 with short term expiry
-
isnt investing in any single company, as apposed to indexing, full of risk over a longer term period.
Tesla may be popular and sexy at the moment and look reasonable on the books, but I bought it as a long term gamble for the 10-15 year period. Its very volatile to trade.
-
Something to consider is that TSLA is still up to nearly 2x it was less than 6 months ago...
-
I don't see how the the likely recession is going to help the bull case for TSLA at all:
- With the oil crash, Gasoline is cheaper than it has ever been
- Poltiical pressure to move against ICE vehicles will disappear. It won't be popular to cludgeon hard up ICE owners when things are tough. The environment can wait.
- People will have less money in general, so the new cars market which TSLA primarily serves is going to get hammered. They will need even more new capital even sooner than previously.
-
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.
Q2 could look like anything. 20k cars produced but not yet delivered at the end of Q1. China is at 200k run rate currently. They've pushed out automatically recognizing and stopping Stop Signs and Stop lights this month, and with $600 million in deferred FSD revenue on the books, that's a nice cushion to deliver with more feature updates. With all that, it could still be terrible. I'm still holding long term because their investments are clearly starting to bear fruit. Without Covid, this stock would be over $1000 today. Weathering Q2 is a big question mark, but they've got $8.1 billion in cash so no short term liquidity issues.
2021+, pretty optimistic.
-
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.
-
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.
On the other hand, people are really liking the clean air from reduced fossil burner usage.
-
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.
https://twitter.com/davidein/status/1255862005535322112
Hmmm....
https://twitter.com/orthereaboot/status/1255836324202008577
-
Uninterested in the conspiracy theories of malicious shorts. Einhorn's fund has been a loser for 5 years in a bull market. I'll decline Greenlight's advice and keep my own investing counsel.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-30/einhorn-s-greenlight-hedge-funds-deepen-slump-with-april-decline (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-30/einhorn-s-greenlight-hedge-funds-deepen-slump-with-april-decline)
-
I'll take the CEO's counsel - https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1256239815256797184
@elonmusk
Tesla stock price is too high imo
-
Didn't the SEC ban him from talking about stock prices?
-
Didn't the SEC ban him from talking about stock prices?
Either his twitter sitter approved the tweet or there's another lawsuit coming lol
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
Did not realize ~2 years was the time horizon for what we determine to be a "good" investment. As this forum is FI-focused, I imagine people have a longer timeline in mind, which is why many (most?) invest in index funds.
The entire basis of whether or not Tesla is a "good" investment is if you think the return/reward outweighs the risk. Investing in a single company comes with inherently more risk than broad-based index funds. That is all this is - do you think TSLA can outperform whatever index over the time period you want to be invested. That's it.
I do not think all stocks are cult stocks. That's a bit of a strawman, eh?
Just because I don't invest individually in TSLA (I probably have ~5 shares via index investing) means I suddenly can't or shouldn't be somewhat aware of its performance? LOL what a crock of crap that is. Sorry, didn't realize there were pre reqs to pass to be able to post about TSLA lmao.
I said it before, but I'll reiterate - I admire Tesla from a distance, from a "this is needed for the future of our planet and species" point of view. I think the cars are cool. I think Musk is a shit CEO and has developed a cult-like following not dissimilar from Pete. I think Tesla routinely misleads the public about its timelines and overstates the functionality of "full self driving." I think they are ahead of their competition in terms of EV range and ease of use (superchargers, app, etc.). I can think all of these things about the company, some you may view as a positive and some you may view as a negative. It's a fascinating company to observe. I read the book on Musk several years ago and spent many hours reading about him on waitbutwhy. I just don't happen to view TSLA as a sound investment for me and I think investing in any individual company as a material percentage of one's portfolio is risky. It's why *most* FI bloggers, podcasters, etc. advocate all or nearly all investments to go to index funds. I still fail to see why I can't comment on TSLA? Heck, most of what I've posted barely scratches the surface - you can find much more in-depth analysis of the company out there.
-
The cult stock comment wasn't fair. A good investment can be for any time horizon. Whatever desired gain over a time period. Not all have to be long term. IMO, the vast majority of FI bloggers say what's safe to bait affiliate clicks, churning out the same article every 6 months that someone else already wrote better 5-10 years ago. Of course I think TSLA will outperform the index over the next 5 years. 2 year time horizon on on this thread is just a fact.
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.
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.
-
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?
I believe multiple people with more time on their hands and who are smarter than me believe the current financials are misstated - fraudulent implies intent to mislead. I also trust the auditors or SEC to catch any such fraudulence if random twitter users can point it out the day the 10Q is published.
-
PwC is their auditor. If there is intent to mislead it's tough for auditors to figure that out, but PwC is a top firm.
(Bought at $190 and $323).
-
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.
No traditional manufacturer has come close to matching Tesla on performance, range and price. Some are cheaper with less range, poorer performance and faster battery degradation. Some can match performance and range, but at a higher price. People have been talking about how Tesla is going to get squashed by the competition for years and years, and Tesla's lead and market shares have expanded each year. In response to the pandemic all the major manufacturers are pulling in their EV investments, which means Tesla's lead and market share will only increase further going forward. That's the problem, the Fords and GMs of the world can't invest heavily in the future while also maintaining their core ICE business model and without pissing off their investors that only care about their dividend and the next quarterly earnings report. They can't serve two masters and Tesla has no such conflict.
Its another misconception that Tesla needs to "monopolize" the EV market to succeed. A smaller slice of a growing pie still makes for a wildly profitable Tesla. Its also a misconception that Tesla is only an EV company.
Tesla is a volatile stock, so I know and expect more violent swings in the future. I'd say 400 is the floor unless the whole global economy goes down the shitter, than it doesn't really matter where you're invested.
-
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.
-
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.
Not sure where you're getting your assumptions. But does VW generate 20-25% margins on the cars they sell? Do they have a fast growing battery storage and energy generation business? Do they collect revenue from software sales like Tesla does and a path to ramp up that revenue as quickly as Tesla does? Are they unencumbered by legacy ICE suppliers, labor agreements, and manufacturing investments like Tesla is?
Point is, you might be right but your back of the envelope analysis isn't more nuanced than the market's.
-
Tesla's future revenue will be influenced as much by software as hardware so comparing its future revenue apples to apples with VW doesn't really make sense. It released utility scale energy software last week. VW isn't doing anything like that.
Today, primarily, Tesla develops hardware (the cars) that delivers software. Not much of the software has been released, but it'll grow very fast as more cars continually hit the road. For example, Tesla Maps will have a couple million mapping nodes constantly driving around gathering data in the next year or two. Where Google can infer an accident has occurred either through movement of devices using Google Maps or from user input, Tesla will be able to show images to the car console (or phone app) about what the accident looks like and the progress of restoring normal traffic from Tesla vehicles passing it allowing users to make better navigation decisions. Morgan Stanley estimates Google Maps provides $3-5 billion of high margin revenue. Google and Apple won't be able to compete with Tesla Maps visual data. That's just one small potential software product Tesla can do that VW can't.
-
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.
Since the launch of the Model S, Tesla has had an annual unit growth rate averaging above 50% per year.
Other than immediate COVID-19 impacts, why do you think their growth rate would be cut in half? Especially now that they've proven they can stand up a new factory (muddy field to Model 3 output) in less than a year.
In addition, they seem to be a leading performer in the rapidly expanding stationary storage market, and based on recent leaks - the incumbent old-school car manufacturers believe Tesla is far ahead of them in software.
-
Opportunity to get in much lower coming up soonish
-
i've never been on the tesla-train, but after reading more about EV's lately, youtube recommended this fine video for me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP971PYzQJs
sure looks like a good long term plan.
-
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.
I agree 100%. I was able to get VTI at $110 at the bottom of the COVID drop and Tesla....guess which one has doubled?
Tesla has become my largest holding and I am not planning on selling any of it any time soon but maybe in 10 years. My index funds will make me a millionaire but IMO will make me multiple millions. If I am wrong I will just work a few more years. My average cost is around $250 and I believe we might see $600 Tesla shares in the future but not much lower than that.
-
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...combined
I mean, to be fair, that's actually possible and even reasonable depending on your assumptions. Legacy automakers and airlines have HUGE liabilities (pensions, union contracts, etc). In the case of airlines, there's some uncertainty as to whether they will even exist without continued gov't intervention (in many cases a bailout will wipe out stockholders 100%, too).
So that comparison is IMO a bit silly right now. A lot of the automakers and airlines could have literally no future value if you're looking at it from the perspective of a stockholder.
That is not to say that Tesla is a screaming buy or anything.
-W
-
TSLA is worth more than every US auto maker and every US airline...combined
There'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.
How is the airline industry relevant to the stock price of a car marker?
-
Broke $1000 today.
-
I saw that Tesla passed Toyota to become the #1 car company in the world in market cap. Quite the milestone!
-
Stacking Tesla's, Leverage up on options with fed bailing us out. 6 trillion gotta go somewhere. Fundamentals irrelevant. Outrageous optimism.
-
I don't use leverage, but I did buy some TSLA leaps recently. I think the stock will be $2k by Q1 2021, but the leaps give more than 2021 to reach that and return 3x compared to 2x on holding the stock in that time.
-
I saw that Tesla passed Toyota to become the #1 car company in the world in market cap. Quite the milestone!
Revenue on the other hand is 1/10th of Toyota, last time I checked. Not going to lie though, wishing I would have dumped my money into Tesla during this most recent bottom!
-
Looking at Tesla, I don't know if it will be up +50% or down -50% a couple years from now. The bull case is the Tesla story, cemented by a new factory in China and inroads in the Chinese market. The bear case could be financials and competitive risks. Maybe the bull case plays out first, then the bear case?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
I don't know and I don't invest in individual stocks anyway. But almost certainly less than it's worth today.
-
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).
https://qz.com/1294282/the-tesla-model-3-cost-28000-to-build-german-engineers-say-and-it-still-may-not-be-profitable/
But you might be right about profit margins in China, where labor and batteries are both cheaper. But how long can Tesla sell a car that costs 3.5 years of the average worker's salary? (Tesla 3 costs $42,000 in China).
Now that I think about it, the Tesla semi truck is a really good idea. Truckers have to limit their driving, and that probably means one recharge at lunch, and another when the day is done. Plus it has autonomous features, which might grow over time. Still, multiple companies are working to perfect fully autonomous long-haul trucking, which could undercut the market - and be a leap ahead of Tesla's technology.
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.
So.. maybe a 5 year bull case that depends on exponential growth in car production and sales?
-
Munro Associates did a 2 hours series on youtube comparing the Cybertruck to the F-150, Ram, and Silverado. Their conclusion was it's just a different type of vehicle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQSQYQ44Qco (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQSQYQ44Qco) I think there's room in the market for both types. The 2021 Ford F-150 looks pretty great. They're really putting a lot of effort into that truck and am excited to see the electric version. How they access enough battery production to build a meaningful amount is a problem.
I think Tesla is actually betting the company on underlying technology: R&D in batteries and software. Once the million mile + batteries are released, the lifetime cost of their cars, especially for fleets, will be extremely low. That's a catalyst for very high sales as their new factories come online. It might just be smoke and mirrors, but they are building their own battery lines near Fremont right now.
Wedbush upped their price target to $2k this morning. A shocking raise. They typically trail the real price.
-
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.
I aspire to own a Toyota Tacoma :shrug:
-
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.
It's way more than just motors.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Automobiles/Tesla-teardown-finds-electronics-6-years-ahead-of-Toyota-and-VW2
-
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...
-
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...
I have family who are uh, let's just say not exactly fans of Tesla/electric energy/etc but are super excited about the Cybertruck.
This includes someone who has owned 4 different pickups in the last 10 years (all newish, including F150s).
People who think that no one will want the Cybertruck are making bold statements which I do not think are backed by reality. The price point of the Cybertruck and its features are very competitive.
-
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.
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.
-
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
-
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...
Pre-order deposits are $100. Not exactly telling about how many will fulfill orders.
They had a 24+% cancellation rate with the Model 3 pre-orders.
-
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
There are those of us cynical enough to think it was staged and intentional (much like, say, I think that peloton ad was intended to be just controversial enough to start people talking about it).
-
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 had a dream a few years ago in which both my cars got stolen, but the insurance agent gave me as much money as I wanted to replace them. I bought a Honda Accord.
I must not be a car guy. Hopefully at least I fit in around here :-)
-
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.
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...)
-
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.
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!
-
A company currently worth ~$246bn has eeked out $264m in earnings the last 9 months. Buy, buy, buy!
Sure, but you could have for years made the same argument about Amazon. People who bought the stock because they thought the business model/company were going to dominate weren't looking at earnings, they were looking a decade+ ahead.
I didn't invest in Amazon (except in index funds) back in the day, and I'm not investing in Tesla now. But if you are a Tesla diehard and expect Tesla tech/batteries/influence to dominate the car market in the future, earnings are mostly irrelevant.
-W
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
I doubt it - building new from the ground up has an inherent efficiency advantage.
-
A problem of the legacy automaker dealerships is that they're largely determined by how the country was laid out in the middle part of the last century. Regulatory drag made it very costly to move them since then and created all sorts of local monopolies.
-
Well, that was an unexpected week.
-
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.
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...)
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
-
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.
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...)
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
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.
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.
-
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 could not help but notice.
Market Cap Tesla = $285B
Market Cap Ford + GM = $60B.
-
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.
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...)
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
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.
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?
-
Those are forward P/E which means those are their analysts projections. Yes, I ignore those because I make my own valuations when I invest in a company. Also because they're short term. Tesla is not mature company.
Look at any growth stock's Forward P/E as they funnel equity and would be profits back into future product growth. It's so short term and, more importantly, unexplained that it's a meaningless number to me. Maybe it works for you and that's great. Unless they explain the sales, expenses, asp, etc, I don't understand how they arrive at their projections anyways.
-
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?
Sounds like you're the one ignoring financial data by focusing on a single parameter rather than the big picture.
It's expensive to scale up production in a capital-intensive industry. Tesla has been roughly doubling production every 2 years.
Growth is worth something. Likely to be a bit low this year because pandemic - but 2Q for Tesla was better than the fossil car manufacturers.
You should also look at EBITDA and other measures of a company's performance.
-
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
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. The company is going to invest every dollar of cash flow in growing their production capacity and in lowering prices over time. Management is going to run this thing as close to the edge as they can get away with for as long as possible to meet their mission.
They take the "accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy" mission very seriously.
I think the only reason they care about profits right now is that they want to get included in the S&P 500 which would be a huge boost to their valuation. As long as cash flow is strong profits are really not that important - you end up being taxed on them and unless you pay dividends what's the point if you have large ambitions?
To reach their goal they need many more than the 4 existing factories (Fremont, Reno, Shanghai, Buffalo) the 2 under construction (Shanghai and Berlin) and the forthcoming ones (Maybe Texas or Oklahoma?) so I don't expect the investment to slow down any time soon. They have a stated goal to grow 50% per year.
This type of corporate investment is not unprecedented. Take a look at Amazon which still has a P/E of over 150. Amazon also invests most of its cash flow in growing their business and it's definitely a choice. They really only started throwing off lots of profit once AWS became a big deal. People have been shouting that AMZN is way overvalued for a very long time and their stock has pretty much gone straight up.
I've been an investor in Tesla since 2012 at ~$34 a share and am comfortable holding the stock now above $1500 (and my largest position at ~10%). It's going to fluctuate a lot from here both up and down. Has the valuation gotten ahead of itself? Maybe. But the stock went nowhere while the company continued to grow from less than 20,000 cars per year to around 500,000 this year.
They are growing market share while the legacy auto makers are losing theirs, are saddled with huge debt and pension obligations an outdated dealer network and huge investments in "buggy whip" ICE technology that will only slow them down.
P/E is a backward looking instrument. The market is forward looking. TSLA is definitely more risky here at 1500 than it was at 200 for sure but I'm holding on for the next 10 years where I believe that they will be much bigger than they are today.
-
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 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.
-
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 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.
Exactly. I don't really understand the fixation on P/E with stocks for companies that are obviously aggressively growing in marketshare.
If P/E was the only thing that mattered, 99% of startups would never get investment money (even/especially pre-IPO, where most startups hemorrhage money, so even if P/E isn't a thing practically the same idea applies). Who would invest money in a company that loses money!?
People expect that long term, Tesla is positioned incredibly well for profitability and growth/domination in the electric vehicle market (and other areas).
-
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 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.
Well, we disagree then. Tesla is a disruptor of older industries. If you want to find a comparable company, you won't. And you won't find forecasted P/E answers you want especially if you won't go the extra mile to create your own valuations. Good luck in your investments.
-
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.
I didn't say that anything below 345 was low p/e. I said that if you invest based on p/e AT ALL then Tesla is not for you. I don't care about P/E at all for rapidly growing companies that are investing all their cash flow in growing their business. Cash generation, revenue growth, and vision is what I look for.
The comparison with Amazon is because Amazon has for years invested nearly all their cash flow rather than turning it in to profits. Profits that don't matter at all if you have a better place for the money.
There are lots of different styles of investing. I like to look for fast growing companies that are looking to the future. Other people want stable businesses with large profits. Both are valid. Tesla is just not for you.
-
TSLA still kicking ass and taking names. Wish my total stock fund had more than 0.4% TSLA in it...
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
What does it mean to be "wrong" about a stock like this?
If evidence, reason, and analysis show a stock should go up to $5, and it goes to $100 instead, we tend to say there was something wrong with the evidence, reason, and analysis. We don't tend to say the market was wrong. We also refuse to say the outcomes of evidence, reason, and analysis have little if anything to do with stock prices. We believe efficient markets hypothesis so deeply that we can only blame ourselves for not doing the obvious thing by putting 100% of our portfolio into TSLA a couple of years ago, and yet we look at the price today and say it is correctly priced because of EMH. The system is both rational and it can be gamed, we just know it!
Similarly, what does it mean to be "right" about a stock like this?
Is the doofus on wallstreetbets who put his life savings all into TSLA a couple years ago and who is now FIREd smarter than the rest of us? Is he smarter than the people who bet almost everything on pets.com and netscape in 1999?
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.
-
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.
-
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.
The argument isn't that there aren't any actual "good investments", just that doofuses like me and you are too doofusy to distinguish which is which. I know I certainly am, I would never have invested in TSLA 2 years ago, and that was the exact same time I was buying one of their cars! Insert "it is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future" and "the market can remain irrational for longer than you can remain solvent" and similar platitudes here.
And that chasing individual "good investments" is overall a fool's errand because - lacking that ability - you'll just come out at or behind where the index arrives anyway, only with a lot more volatility and personal risk of losing everything along the way.
I mean yeah I get it, I'm jealous of the guy on reddit that turned $30k in his ROTH IRA into $1MM over three months too. But we all know that for every one-in-a-million guy like that, there's also the 999,999 people who didn't win and don't post to brag about it.
And then add in the effects of missing the 10 best days (https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/04/11/what-happens-when-you-miss-the-best-days-in-the-st.aspx), which you are of course much more likely to do if you're trying to time the market and/or transferring things around in individual stocks than if you're a set-it-and-forget-it automatic long-term indexer.
Long-term indexing isn't gambling, because everyone wins at it! Investing in or shorting TSLA? Both of those options seem nuts!
-
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.
-
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.
2000-2003 and 2006-2009 come to mind. Of course, speculative short positions might have done well at that time.
-
If I was asked to place a bet on what I think will be Tesla's biggest earner in the future, I believe it will be battery storage technology and not EVs. In the same way that AWS is the biggest contributor to Amazon profits, not online retailing.
-
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'm not opposed to the fact that I've been lucky for sure. Can't hardly believe it myself but I've been tracking my returns against the S&P 500 total return index since 2007.
Equal parts luck, getting good advice and a decent grasp on keeping my emotions under control. Buy and hold, add to my winners, don't let the noise of the market get to you.
Managing other people's money is a whole different ball game. The fact that I'm small and I don't have to answer to anyone except myself are huge factors in my returns.
Having clients that are breathing down your neck about the most recent quarter never helped anyone invest well.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
Fair enough. Cheers! I hope you do well too. I'm about done here regardless. After 5+ years, there's very little left to learn and most of my favorite personalities are already gone.
-
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.
I agree with everyone here that expects Tesla to increase profits over the next decade or longer, but I also agree with those here who question if Tesla's price already exceeds the value of those increased profits.
snip
Reported as the spam that it is.
Now your quote is the record of it appearing here.
-
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.
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.
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.
Not sure how 13.75% annual return is a 25% more than 10% annual return.
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.
-
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.
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.
Not sure how 13.75% annual return is a 25% more than 10% annual return.
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.
10% return means multiply the previous value by 1.1. 1.1 * 1.25 = 1.1375.
But sure, the money you add later has less time to grow. True for me - I've had some large influxes in the past couple years because my privately held company did a couple tender offers where we could sell stock to external investors, and my income has grown over these past years. So 21.5% per year (my time weighted return ignoring cash flows) vs 10.43% per year for Mr. SPY means that I have 2.25X what i would have had with indexing in 14 years, because the most recent money hasn't had as much time to grow. But I'll take the extra.
-
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.
-
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.
Well, I mean TSLA was $255 a year ago and is now $1581 (a 6.2x increase).
AMZN "only" went up 1.6x from a year ago.
-
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)).
Whichever way you want to do it. 12.5% return for 20 years == 10.5x your money vs. 6.7x so still pretty significant.
-
...snip
Reported as the spam that it is.
Reported as the spam-quote that it is :)
-
The conventional wisdom is,
"Buy low and sell high, and if it doesn't go up don't buy it."
Hmm, $505 to $1539, it did go up, so you should have bought it!
Mar 23 to July 27.
-
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.
-
The conventional wisdom is,
"Buy low and sell high, and if it doesn't go up don't buy it."
Hmm, $505 to $1539, it did go up, so you should have bought it!
Mar 23 to July 27.
You're admonishing yourself.
-
The conventional wisdom is,
"Buy low and sell high, and if it doesn't go up don't buy it."
Hmm, $505 to $1539, it did go up, so you should have bought it!
Mar 23 to July 27.
You're admonishing yourself.
If that's so, it's OK!
-
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?
-
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?
Nah! he'll split it before that.
https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/11/tesla-announces-5-for-1-share-split-rallies-8/
-
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.
Just a 2 week 1 std dev iron condor can be sold for more than $10, which is stunningly high premium...
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
You answered none of my questions.
If Tesla is manufacturing 1k solar roofs per week like Musk claimed, where are they?
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
What do you all think about the battery technology they announced? I'm not an engineer but it seems promising. Reports I've read from various outfits suggest its a major improvement in design, but differ on whether Tesla can deliver the improvement gains they predict, and definitely question whether they can be done in the timeframe of 2-3 years. I think this is different in nature than the usual over-promises on the software front, but is a problem that no other companies have successfully tackled in a commercially viable way. Then again, if what they announced does come to fruition, it can pose Tesla to become the (pre-recession 80s) General Electric of the coming century. Either way, I think this will depress sales until the new technology is mass produced.
-
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.
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.
Where did I type angrily at anyone? This is getting weird.
-
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.
None of these other companies guaranteed level 5 autonomy (robotaxis) this year.
Is that coast to coast autonomous trip completed yet? Was supposed to be 2017 maybe, 2018 definitely.
-
[/quote]
None of these other companies guaranteed level 5 autonomy (robotaxis) this year.
Is that coast to coast autonomous trip completed yet? Was supposed to be 2017 maybe, 2018 definitely.
[/quote]
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.
In Q2 of 2020 Tesla's real world real driving data showed 1 car accident every 4.53 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 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 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.
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 that apples to apples?
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.
What? No it's not. 100% autonomous coast-to-coast would obviously require recharging, which requires navigating intersections and pulling up to the charger.
-
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.
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 that apples to apples?
Is Autopilot used extensively in urban driving where most accidents happen?
No it's not, it's "while Autopilot is engaged" which is going to be mostly highway driving, and mostly in the least-dangerous situations of highway and city driving (for example less often in a construction zone than average, less often in heavy rain or fog or snow, etc). Tesla doesn't release numbers more specific than that, so no one knows exactly how it stacks up apples-to-apples.
-
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.
Per Tesla's own literature, the driver must remain attentive and ready to retake control at a moment's notice. That's not "Full autonomy" according to the SAE, NHTSA, etc. It's only Level 2 autonomy.
(https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/styles/paragraphs_image_crop/public/nhtsa_sae_automation_levels.png?itok=0GsCp1em)
Elon and Tesla have great marketing. Publicity and hype can literally generate billions for them. They're not going to miss a chance to show off and build their brand. If they felt confident that the car could do it, I have a very hard time believing that they wouldn't have done it already. Level 2 autonomy is intended to be used as a driving aid to reduce fatigue in simple situations such as long stretches of highway cruising. It's not intended to replace all driving, and it's not capable of handling very complex situations or in some cases, even relatively simple ones like poor road markings.
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.
The thing is, they don't have to be crashing at all if Tesla had better controls in place. Many of these steps could probably be done with simple OTA updates. All other tech like this has more restrictions in place on the user. GM's Super Cruise is also a Level 2 driving aid. They have cameras in the car that watch the driver and make sure their eyes remain forward and hands on the wheel. They have far fewer miles logged than Tesla, but they also have zero accidents while the system is in use. Waymo is Level 4 autonomy (no safety driver at all) on public roads, and they have a far, far better safety record than Autopilot.
The way that they're wrecking is also important too. Most of the Autopilot accidents that I'm aware of involve a failure to react to a pretty basic driving situation. The human behind the wheel is to blame, but shouldn't these autonomous safety systems be able to see a stationary object the size of a semi that's blocking the road? Autopilot struggles with things that most human drivers (even partially distracted ones) can navigate without wrecking. Wrecks like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3hrKnv0dPQ (ftp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3hrKnv0dPQ) only make the general public, legislators, and regulators apprehensive to adopting this tech. It's better for everybody (users and manufacturers) to make sure this tech is developed and applied responsibly, even if that takes a couple of years longer. High profile, easily avoidable wrecks a couple of times per year only hurt the cause.
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?
As for me, it's not about a metric of safety, it's about Autopilot routinely doing things that a human isn't likely to do. I want to see it navigating difficult situations equally as well or better than an average human driver (pretty low bar). When I see videos of it failing to see a stationary object (like a tipped over truck that's 9ft tall and 20 ft wide) in broad daylight, that's not going to cut it for me to trust it with my life or my families. 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. There's a growing contingent of people in the car world that say we shouldn't be allowing public use of anything between level 1 autonomy and level 5 autonomy on public roads. There just aren't enough safeguards in place, and drivers are assuming the tech is more capable than it is at this time.
-
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?
"Have to" is probably wrong nowadays, because most things you'd actually want to mess with while driving are either automatic (wipers) or can and probably should be done by voice command (manual wipers, music, AC, navigation, calling someone). But yes, they probably should disallow more of the screen options while moving.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I think 15-30 seconds is a ton of time when driving for stuff to go wrong. Most emergency situations on the road occur in far less time than that. One critical issue with semi-autonomous driving aids is that when they get into a situation that they can't solve, it's going to be a fairly complex situation that a human will suddenly be expected to figure out. So you're basically asking the human to jump in and handle the hard stuff on the fly. If they've been paying attention, it might be possible for the human to safely navigate the emergency or even avoid it entirely, but if the driver is distracted in any way, they have almost no chance of instantly assessing the situation and choosing the best course of action when the car suddenly turns over control.
I realize that this thread is specifically about TSLA, but these advanced safety systems from all manufacturers struggle with pretty basic driving situations these days. We're still a very long way from full autonomy if you can't recognize and avoid crashing into a pedestrian while traveling 30mph in broad daylight:
https://newsroom.aaa.com/2019/10/aaa-warns-pedestrian-detection-systems-dont-work-when-needed-most/
-
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.
-
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.
It will be great for some people, but in the tech industry every free benefit that has ever been offered has come with a hidden cost. Your Google searches are used to serve up more targeted ads that will eventually succeed in parting you from your money or vote. Your iPhone is full of free features that lock you into a closed ecosystem that directs your spending. And of course the free social media products are addictive, depressive, and extremist. Why will transportation not be monetized the same way? Expecting people to pay for their transportation directly and in cash is like expecting a social media company to start charging $20/month or YouTube to require a quick payment of 5 cents per video. I’m sure such services would be excellent and very customer-centric, but nobody’s buying them even today.
-
Seems TSLA just jumped 13.5% after hours. Wonder why?
-
Seems TSLA just jumped 13.5% after hours. Wonder why?
A quick Google search says that TSLA is being added to the S&P500
-
I lucked out. I bought 4 weekly calls today, $440 strike, at $1.17. I’ve been losing $300-500 most weeks playing TSLA options but this will make it all up and more.
-
I think the answer to this thread is conclusively "yes" tesla was a good investment. hah.
-
I wonder if the SpaceX news had anything to do with this increase?
-
I wonder if the SpaceX news had anything to do with this increase?
It shouldn't, SpaceX is a separate (private) company.
-
Tesla's market cap would be 1.1% weighted in $5 trillion of S&P indices. $55 billion worth of shares need to be represented over the next few months, $20 billion is currently short, and most shares are long. Q4 will be record profit. So movement is completely unpredictable because of covid short term, but seems like there are tail winds generally.
-
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.
-
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.
wow - never thought of it in this way, insightful!
Thanks! :)
-
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
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 :)
-
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
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?
The announcement is that Tesla will be joining the S&P 500, but it's not instantaneous. It goes fully into effect December 21st. This gives funds a chance to rebalance.
The rejected company hasn't been announced yet.
-
thanks Tom!
I read this entire thread tonight from start to finish today. Very interesting!
-
Pretty safe to say that it has been a good investment since the beginning of this thread... it has almost gone 10x.
-
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 :)
I started purchasing TSLA shares in 2013. FIRE'd in 2017. TSLA investment was not central to my FIRE decision, but has provided an added cushion. Currently holding 2,600 post-split shares. Keep in mind I had never invested more than $5,000 in any individual stock before Tesla. There were some serious white-knuckle days along the way. On those days, I reminded myself that having more money in a world where Tesla failed and climate change continued unabated wouldn’t matter or bring me happiness. Making money while investing in a worthwhile mission is very rewarding.
-
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 :)
I have ~1500 post split shares in retirement accounts and HSA from accumulating through mid 2019. I'm financially independent, but I'm working through the end of 2021 because I've been friends with the owner of the company since we were 8 and he relies on me. We've already talked about it and made a schedule for exiting. Most of the money I made was through TSLA call options this year in my taxable account. My kids are 5 and 2. All the time in the day to raise them this early compared to our original timeline is a dream come true for my wife and I.
Early 2019 was the hardest to hold. Q1 & Q2 2019 was hugely disappointing in manufacturing execution. 2020 has been stellar on all counts.
-
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.
-
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.
All investing involves risk that can be likened to gambling. Equating investing in Tesla to a spin of the roulette wheel is an absurd comparison though. I didn’t play a game of chance. I made a very educated investment decision and stuck with it for years despite constant naysaying from friends and coworkers. Acknowledging there are factors beyond my control does not make me “lucky”.
I had an investment thesis. I will maintain my investment as long as my thesis holds true and I can answer two simple questions in the affirmative.
Are EVs and battery storage (coupled with renewable energy) the future?
Is Tesla the industry leader in EVs and battery tech/ storage?
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. Chances are one or more of these ventures will also be wildly successful/profitable. To those who did their own research and didn’t let the financial media paint an overly negative picture of Tesla’s prospects, an investment in Tesla once the Model S was successfully launched was hardly as risky as most were led to believe.
I recommend everyone invest in companies whose product or service you understand and appreciate. For me, buying a 2013 Nissan Leaf and educating myself on all the advantages of EV transportation made it obvious that EVs were the future back then. So, I’m not suggesting everyone should have invested in Tesla. This was the one time in my investing life however, where I felt like I had “special” knowledge that even Wall Street was missing with its short term metrics, lack of understanding, and inability to properly value Tesla because they kept trying to compare Tesla to conventional automakers. The modern day equivalent of trying to value Henry Ford’s new car company and livery stables in the early 1900s using the same metrics because they both involved transportation.
Any investment involves some luck along the way, but I also spend time daily educating myself on every aspect of Tesla’s business. I missed the boat on all the FANG stocks, but I give credit to those investors that did see the value early and see no reason to diminish their success by suggesting they won a simple game of chance.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Did you go 100% all in based on this conviction? Are you doing so now?
Gosh, you really are obsessed with this gambling approach.
-
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 :)
When I first heard about Tesla in 2014, I laughed at the idea. I thought it was going to go the way of Fisker Karma. When I took a trip to California in the summer of 2014 and saw a bunch of model S on the road, I thought may be Tesla had a chance. Hydrogen fuel cell was a competing technology back then but after I read the Musk biography when it came out in 2015, I knew hydrogen fuel cell was a dead end. I bought my first shares in 2015. It had been a tough ride, a really tough ride. I remember thinking that TSLA was such a battleground, so hated and loved at the same time. It traded poorly in the stock market almost every single day. I'm sure many of us remember Elon's tweets. I was like "please don't tweet anything about your company for a few days!!". I'm glad the company is now recognized, at least by S&P.
PE is really not a good indicator for stock performance, especially for young and growing companies. Unfortunately, the PE concept might have been popularized in the 1990's in a couple well-known books. If the stock market was this easy, then a lot of people would be making money by just buying and holding low PE stocks.
-
Did you go 100% all in based on this conviction? Are you doing so now?
No.
As I said earlier in the thread, valuing this stock takes looking at where production is going. Right now it's looking like 1,000,000 cars in 2021 at 25% GM. 2022, it'll be +2 million cars. Total addressable market is growing incredibly fast. On the financials, they'll be printing billions at increasingly higher levels because battery costs are falling like a rock. We'll also likely see manufacturing scale efficiencies increase the GM. Further, they're selling a $10k software package whose take rate is growing and soon it'll all go to the bottom line vs deferred revenue. I haven't even added all their ancillary services and products. When you extrapolate these trends through 2025, there's a lot of growth still left here. That's just what I think and could be wrong of course, but implying investing in a stock is all luck is farcical and self-limiting.
-
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.
Tesla's "forward P/E" is now less than Amazon's even as its price has climbed. It's 3x less at Morningstar and 2x less at Yahoo compared to July. Neither institution releases what they used for production, expenses or revenue. If you can't tell how they came up with the number, don't use it.
-
P/E is also a bit misleading because a company that heavily invests in itself and future growth will have a much worse P/E ratio than a company that just hoards cash.
Amazon and Tesla are both companies that have dumped huge amounts of money into growing their business.
Telsa's P/E being 345 or whatever "very high" number it is matters much less if it has a clear plan where it can be reduced significantly in the next few years.
-
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.
-
https://www.benzinga.com/media/20/11/18510818/cramer-says-teslas-valuation-is-easier-to-justify-as-tech-company-not-auto
interesting take.
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.
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
Does Cramer know TSLA is an auto company? I.e. it can't make copies of the model S as easily as Microsoft can make copies of Windows or Salesforce can add accounts?
-
I guess you'll have to ask him yourself!
-
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.
I don't make valuations with your constrictions in mind. What you consider wild and generous, I consider a drastic low ball, especially over a 10 year period. I don't know but my assumption is you invest in stock funds and not individual companies so not sure what the point would be anyways. We both know I can't change your mind on TSLA being a good investment or not. My point is there's more to it than just putting it all on 26.
-
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.
I don't necessarily disagree with you (having worked in multi billion dollar factories building large equipment before). My point is that PE alone doesn't tell the whole story.
That being said, I think it's batshit insane what Tesla is priced at.
-
This is about where I expected TSLA to be once the market started pricing in its potential without fear of outright failure. Now that it's here, the upside is much more limited though I do think it could still ~double in the next couple years if things go well. Certainly, access to capital is no longer an issue and access to the best engineering talent still leads the field. Realistically, I should start winding down my position next calendar year when I'll have no earned income. But I have trouble letting go.
-
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.
Rather not say, but the position grew to more than a fifth of my portfolio before I sold some shares after the split. It's creeping back up there.
-
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.
-
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.
Wow! Now shorting - that I think is the real 'gambling'. I'm not even sure how that got to be a thing, negative investing....but there ya go!
-
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.
oh wow! That is something to cause a few pangs for sure!
they do say that kids are expensive. ;)
-
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.
-
Geez... another 7%
-
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!
-
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!
Looks like they are doing another stock offering raising $5B selling shares at market. They did one of these earlier this year. At this point it's almost free money for them.
It doesn't really even take a bite out of all the shares the index funds are going to need to buy in order to rebalance into TSLA on the 21st.
-
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.
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-18/tesla-s-tsla-stock-price-an-army-of-millionaire-retail-traders-hold-on?utm_source=pocket-newtab
-
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.
You seem to have an irrational hatred for Tesla for someone who is simply an observer? You also repeatedly post demonstrably false information. SpaceX and Tesla are literally the most desirable employers for top US engineering graduates.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/06/the-10-most-attractive-employers-for-engineering-students.html
Unless you have firsthand experience perhaps you should stop posting about that which you know not. Please don't bother posting the anecdotal sob stories of a self-selected group of former employees. Elon is tough to work for and very demanding, so was every good coach, manager and leader I've had. The tradeoff is you literally get to help transform how society uses energy and transport people and goods or make the human race and interplanetary species. Yep, nothing to see here, just your average run-of-the mill companies.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Kind of bummed I missed out on both bitcoin and Tesla. Bitcoin has done way better but either one would have required a crystal ball to put serious money into years ago.
-
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.
-
Yeah I got lucky and bought it at the IPO on a whim before I had a family to look out for, then forgot for several years until we started saving money regularly. Kind of a dumb system I had, but got lucky once in my life! Definitely never doing that again and agree it's over-valued (though it'd be awesome if the battery plan comes to fruition).
-
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.
Hmm, I bought ENPH (Enphase) at 1.42 two years ago and it is 170.08 today (numbers are in Euros). I also bought Libbey two years ago and it‘s worth nothing today. Both were totally random investments, because I believe that math and statistics win in the long run. That has (fortunately) nothing to do with my (in)ability to pick the right stock.
-
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.
IIRC there were a lot of people 3-5 years ago who were talking about overweighting in oil companies, Berkshire Hathaway, “dividend aristocrats”, or just shorting the market. Presumably they are all indexers by now, except for the true believers who have found a supportive information bubble community in sub-forums. Those who picked big tech, Tesla, and crypto get to hang out in the main forums. Depending on the numbers and the specifics of the future, they might be the unlucky ones.
-
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.
-
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.
Man... that sounds rough to me. How do you feel?
-
You could be forgiven for seeing what was happening in August 2018 and thinking the drama wasn't worth it.
-
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-china
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.
-
Agree on both points, @talltexan
-
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.
Of course, if one wants to dilute their Tesla shares to get more Bitcoin exposure, they can just sell Bitcoin and buy Tesla. Certain investors are mesmerized by the trick though.
-
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.
Tesla’s stake in BTC represents 7.5% of their “cash” reserve. Based on when Tesla likely bought their BTC position, Tesla is likely up around $500 million currently. I’m neutral on this idea overall, but I don’t see it representing a significant risk to Tesla’s future.
-
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%!
-
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-china
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.
Go to 14:20 mark. Per Consumer Reports, Tesla ranked #1 in customer satisfaction by brand. Tesla Model 3 (#1), Model S (#3), Model Y (#4) and Model X (#10) all ranked in top 10 in customer satisfaction by model.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGKS0EW2SQY
All car manufacturers have recalls. Tesla recalls have been minor (in quantity and severity) by comparison, have not involved fatalities (see exploding gas tanks and Takata air bags) and many Tesla recalls have been addressed via over-the-air software updates.
Panel gaps and other aesthetic issues have been an ongoing issue that Tesla/Elon have acknowledged, but again these issues are easily fixed/addressed at the point of delivery before taking possession fo the car and overall customer satisfaction (quantifiable) is best in the business. Most Tesla owners would happily buy again. Tesla are also some of the safest cars on the road and consistently get 5-star safety ratings.
-
I also think it puts the company at risk to be caught short on cash at a time when Bitcoin is down.
Pretty minimal risk.
Last I checked they had ~$19B in cash. The Bitcoin is a single-digit percentage of their cash on hand.
-
I haven't read this whole thread, but I want to chip in a few things to consider. I'm a huge Tesla fan, but with that said I would not buy one. There are too many qc issues and big question marks with the cars. Because of that, I suspect that the stock is overvalued right now.
Issues with the cars for me:
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.
But the bigger issues are things like knobs and door handles. Teslas work great in the California climate. They have issues in the cold. If their door handles are frozen shut, their recommended fix is to warm up the car one hour before driving to defrost them. This would be OK if they did it on the roadster or maybe model S, but they are still doing bogus things like this in their current vehicles.
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.
Other issues:
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. Maybe it doesn't have the 0-60 times, but the doors can open in the cold. And it will be more reliable and more capable as and SUV. Plus it can do in town trips on full battery charge. Oh and Toyota has sold every single one of these made too. Or perhaps I like the 7 passenger aspect. Well, there's a Plug in Hybrid Chrysler Pacifica that is pretty sharp. Sure, it's a Chrysler, but I would trust the build quality of it over a Tesla.
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.
Self driving: To paraphrase. 95% self driving is easy to do. It's the 5% at the end that's really hard. So if we see a company with a 90% self driving car, they might still only be 1/4 of the way to a fully self driving car. I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, it's basically just lane assist.
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.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla has already unloaded a good amount of their bitcoin position now that it's public. Just juice the earnings for the year from Elon's twitter pump.
-
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.
You fail to note they were already replacing the problem item for free for many people for months prior, and agreed to perform the recall for all users. It's extremely common for car manufacturers to declare themselves not at fault for a recall and perform the recall anyway.
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.
Good luck finding one. Toyota shipped all of 4k of them to the USA in all of 2020.
-
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.
Good luck finding one. Toyota shipped all of 4k of them to the USA in all of 2020.
Right, but previously in the thread we used the fact that vehicles are sold out as a good metric. I am saying this a bit tongue in cheek. So Toyota wins; they sold out before the products hit the shores!
Elon Musk has also gone on the record a few times insulting the Toyota production line. Toyota has been the gold standard of industry production in general (not just in automotive). Entire classes are taught about their quality control and just in time manufacturing. I'm not sure if the comments are trolling or just completely out of touch with how insanely competitive the automotive production industry is. There is an assumption that companies like Mercedes are just twiddling their thumbs, not trying to improve. They might not be improving in EV's, but you can darn well be sure that their doors drain water properly.
This is all constructive criticism, mind you. I want them to do good!
BTW, prediction that the cybertruck doesn't look anything like the prototype. Reason: it won't meet pedestrian and crash requirements and they will have to change the structure of the vehicle. I hope I'm wrong on this too. If it looks reasonably close to the prototype I might still buy one despite it being anti-mustachian. So I'm not anti-Tesla, I just think they are in for a reality check once the early adopter phase ends.
-
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%!
Musk's tweets about $TSLA stock...could lead to possible criminal exposure for Musk.
Musk's tweets about Bitcoin...no path to criminal exposure?
-
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.
I doubt there's a single Toyota model that shares door handles with a different Toyota model. Maybe back in the 70s, or maybe between trim levels of the same vehicle, but say a modern Camry vs Corolla vs Rav4? No way. That's one of the simplest things to change and makes an enormous difference in the appearance of the vehicle.
-
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/11/investing/elon-musk-pay-wealth-tesla-stock-options/index.html
[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.
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-vanguard-group-stock-purchase-6-1-percent/
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.
we are all tesla investors now, musk will rule the world as richest dude, let's all clasp hands and sing kumbaya, and then drive off into the sunset in our new and shiny electric vehicles.
-
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 FSD is way more than lane assist. You are correct that solving the edge cases is a huge part of the undertaking, but have you watched recent video’s of Tesla’s FSD beta in real world situations. I’ve witnessed cars on autopilot, swerve to miss a car backing out of driveway, going on to the shoulder, without driver intervention. In another scenario, an Amazon truck was parked on the shoulder, taking up half of the Tesla’s lane. Another car traveling in the opposite direction arrived at the parked Amazon delivery van at the same time. At this exact moment the Amazon delivery driver blindly hopped put of the driver side door into the Tesla’s lane of traffic. The oncoming car did not stop or react to the situation. Without human intervention, the Tesla vehicle instantaneously registered the human presence and applied the break avoiding a serious injury or death to the Amazon driver. I’d say less than half of human drivers would have responded correctly and in time in that exact situation.
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.
-
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 it to say, people have been saying the challengers will easily catch-up to Tesla for years, and the gap has only grown.
-
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.
I won’t accuse you of being defensive for responding with your opinion. Other insurance companies will not have access to Tesla’s database of user mileage (billions of miles) that Tesla has been collecting to hone their FSD. That will be unique to Tesla Insurance when setting rates for Tesla drivers. I’d also argue Tesla customers are fiercely loyal and are very likely to take the Tesla Insurance when offered in their state over any competitor. 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.
-
Also Tesla's autonomous fleet will be its own biggest customer
-
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.
It’s true. I’m not dropping any bombshells and I’ll have to look up Gish Gallop? It is well established and repeated throughout history that the incumbent that is being disrupted rarely sees the future until it's too late. Incumbents by their very nature are not nimble and are entrenched in the current way of doing things the way they’ve always been done. The surprise here is that you believe disruption of the auto industry would be different from nearly every other major technological disruption and this time the incumbents nimbly adapt, survive, and beat the innovator at their own game.
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.
-
That is what VW is trying to do right now, and it‘s a huge bet even for one of the largest car manufacturers on the face of the earth.
-
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.
The Malcolm Gladwell book David and Goliath is about this phenomena. Of course it's not truth. You can find anecdotal evidence in both directions. Despite whatever "current thinking" means, investment relies on a variety of models to project success. You could even turn it around and have the perspective of Tesla being the Goliath because it currently is in electric vehicle sales. But you need some method to make a decision. You're right: Toyota definitely knows how to align body panels on a frame and produce a great ICE and hybrid cars. It seems likely EVs will become dominate consumer products toward the mid and end of this decade for transportation. How useful is the cognitive model that manufacturing and selling an ICE vehicle is the same as an EV? It hasn't been very useful in projecting Tesla's demise so far.
In investing, the only true model is the future is unclear. It's also the most useless.
-
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.
-
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.
What? I'm a bit outraged here, frankly.
Are you seriously telling me that these 'cars of the future' don't automatically properly inflate all tires to optimal levels every time you turn them on?
ripped off!
-
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.
You heard it first here!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2021/02/12/as-bitcoin-soars-toward-50000-data-reveals-tesla-billionaire-elon-musk-triggered-a-12-billion-bitcoin-price-short-squeeze/?sh=72f519cf219e (https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2021/02/12/as-bitcoin-soars-toward-50000-data-reveals-tesla-billionaire-elon-musk-triggered-a-12-billion-bitcoin-price-short-squeeze/?sh=72f519cf219e)
-
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.
-
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 don't see why not. Weirder things have happened.
One of my favorite things about Tesla is their direct to customer sales. But I am seeing that trend being pushed into the other manufacturers. I appreciate that Tesla did this, but it doesn't mean that they're the only ones who can.
I am cautiously optimistic about them, but the religious devotion makes me cringe. And I want to apply that same optimism to other brands. There are tons of smart engineers at Ford and Chevy and Toyota who would probably love to convert time and energy to EVs. Many smart people work at other companies and they didn't up and move their families to the draining work schedule in an expensive city (San Fran). Just because Tesla can draw upon hard working young devoted engineers doesn't mean they have a monopoly on innovation. I personally would rather live and work at Toyota in Plano, Texas than Tesla in San Fran (I'm not joking).
-
I won’t accuse you of being defensive for responding with your opinion.
Fair enough. I was not having a great day and perhaps should not have been posting online. I appreciate you not escalating it.
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.
Presumably, Teslas will be cheaper to insure across all insurance platforms because of this. Tesla won't have some kind of magically lower risk based on who the insurer is. And just because they are cheaper on the insured's side doesn't mean they are cheaper for the insurer. Those are independent of each other.
The thing is, there may be upside to Tesla insurance, but it doesn't account for any of the potential downsides when valuating it. There are ways to lose money on insurance. There are ways to lose customers with poor service. There are laws and regulations in the industry regarding paying out settlements that Tesla will have to adapt to. They will have to staff another division (not related to vehicles or electric at all). Mr. Musk will have to devote a small amount of time making decisions about insurance that he could otherwise spend on making better rockets. I am just giving examples; maybe none of this will happen. But there is an opportunity cost here and companies have definitely failed by spreading themselves too thin.
-
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.
-
I worked on the floor at another premium auto manufacturing as a robot tech.
I have also toured the Tesla factory. They started way behind the other players as far as process and efficiency goes but are incredibly agile. Very ambitious goals. I believe they will soon *if not already* blow by all the competition on manufacturing excellence due to their agile nature and rapid continued improvement.
But no way their market value is right.
-
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.
So, if panel gaps are a deal breaker, I assume you’ll never buy from:
-Toyota after they had to recall 9.3 million vehicles due to unintended acceleration that killed 89 customers.
-Ford after tire tread separation and sudden blowouts left 271 dead. Or the 823 rollover deaths resulting from the faulty design of their Bronco. Or the 14 million Ford vehicles recalled to due cruise control deactivation switch fires.
-Volkswagen after they cooked the books for the diesel vehicle emissions. Of the 300k vehicles recalled due to fuel pump failure that lead to stalls at speed.
-GM after they recalled 2.6 million vehicles for faulty ignition switches that killed 303 customers.
-Fiat/Chyrsler after exploding gas tanks during low speed collisions resulted in 478 deaths and the company finally recalled 2.7 million vehicles 15 years after the first deaths!
I’m pretty sure a panel gap never killed or injured anyone. Tesla’s don’t have fuel tanks, fuel pumps, ignition switches, or single rollover death that I’m aware. IN fact, all of Tesla’s recalls have been for minor issues and not a single death has been attributed to a Tesla recall.
In 2020, there was a Tesla vehicle fire every 205 million miles. According to the National Fire Protection Association and the U.S. Department of Transportation, there is a vehicle fire once every 19 million miles. But, the panel gaps...
Tesla holds five star safety ratings on all four of its production vehicles. Tesla’s Model Y had the lowest rollover risk of any vehicle ever tested by NHSTA. The Model S, Model X, and Model 3 have all achieved the lowest overall probability of injury of any vehicle ever tested by the U.S. government’s New Car Assessment program. Sure, but there’s still some vehicles with panel gaps...
In the 4th quarter of 2020, Tesla vehicles registered one accident for every 3.45 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged. For those driving without Autopilot but with active safety features engaged, vehicles registered one accident for every 2.05 million miles driven. For vehicles driven without Autopilot and without active safety features engaged, vehicles registered one accident for every 1.27 million miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 484,000 miles. Yeah, but what about the panel gaps!
I’m not trying to convince you to buy Tesla vehicles or stock. I just find it frustrating that all these existing manufacturers seem to get a pass on quality and safety, despite the documented history of issues, deaths, and cover ups. Yet, you are willing to extrapolate that Tesla’s are poorly made or unsafe because some early production vehicles have minor panel gap issues that are easily fixed and not safety related. Ignoring that Teslas have the highest safety and customer satisfaction ratings of any brand and there has not been a single recall related fatality. You free to assume what you want based on panel gaps, but the weight of the evidence/data suggests its the competition that routinely has safety, design and quality issues, not Tesla. Every meaningful and objective measure strongly indicates Tesla has exceptional build quality and safety as laid out above.
Don’t take my word for it. Go watch the tear down video’s done by Sandy Munro. Sandy will point out the panel gaps and express his disappointment that they exist, but then go on to rave about the overall build quality and how he could never have gotten Ford/GM to do the things Tesla is doing in their manufacturing process when he worked in Detroit. He’s constantly raving about Tesla’s pace of innovation and how quick they are to make improvements to their vehicles from one model year to the next.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCj--iMtToRO_cGG_fpmP5XQ
As for valuation, go look at other recent Tesla threads in this Investor forum, if you like. There are detailed discussions and I and other Tesla investors made our case. I’m not going to rehash it in detail again. I’ll only say, the company that is growing by 40-50% per year should be worth more than the companies with declining sales and soon to be stranded assets and outdated technology.
-
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?
-
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?
You implied the panel gaps were indicative of larger quality issues. While I agree you never questioned Tesla’s safety, I’d argue safety and build quality are obviously related. If a car is not built well then it will not be safe as evidenced by the list of fatal recalls due to poor build quality or design. My whole point is that outside of the panel gaps themselves all evidence as to the quality and safety of Tesla’s vehicles runs counter to your assertion or perception that they are “disposable” and of poor quality.
I do apologize for the heavy handedness of my posts. However, I’ve been fighting false claims against Tesla going on 8 years now since I bought my first shares in 2013. The arguments change, the goal posts move, and new critics emerge, but the near constant stream of misinformation continues unabated. I don’t sense any malice on your part, though you seem to take this personal, and I feel like I’ve largely stuck with facts and substantive opinions in my posts.
Anyway we can move along. Its not my intention to argue or debate every post that has something negative to say about Tesla. If all you said was the cars have some finish issues and you think the stock is overvalued I likely would not have responded. It was the extrapolation from panel gaps to your perception or assumption of larger or general quality issues that flew in the face of the available facts. I can ramble and go off on side tracks and while I’m trying to respond to directly to you, I am also trying to inform anyone else reading along on Tesla generally.
Best- Colorado Tribe
-
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?
-
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.
That's good news that they're working on other revenue models. Not only does their car manufacturing make no money without the tax credits, they had to cut their prices today due to EV competition.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
Point taken! Thanks. I do think there is value in that program being inherent in Tesla's product and not an opt in product. The other insurance companies also can't recover 360 video of incidents (that I know of without an additional device) nor real-time data about the physical aspects of the vehicle in addition to the driver. In general, the driver data is an incremental step. The goal of the product is Tesla being able to insure the car when it's driving autonomously.
-
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)
Too many garbage articles at Seeking Alpha, especially when the topic is Tesla.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
It's an inverter. From the specs it appears to be a standard string inverter with mediocre efficiency at that (meaning it's a far cry from what some of the microinverters can do these days).
I would be glad to be proven wrong, but currently this just sounds like rose colored Tesla glasses.
I would buy it if I were getting a whole Tesla solar setup (Panels, charger, powerwall, etc.) But I would do the same with any solar install; grouping manufacturers' makes the install more reliable and predictable.
And the Octovalve is an industry 3rd, at best. Volkswagen ID.3 and Mercedes EQC do the same thing. And the Nissan Leaf was the first vehicle to use a heat pump in their vehicle (although theirs was a simple air-to-air one). But Nissan using one in a 25K vehicle in 2013 when Tesla was using standard resistance heat in their 80K Model S shows that they aren't the peak innovators in every category. Lots of EVs use various heat pump variants. But, you know, Tesla gets all the credit.
-
If you think that octovalve is "just a heatpump" - I suggest deeper analysis. Sandy Munro's Youtube videos are an option for getting you started.
I don't know that the Tesla inverter is anything special yet. Their habit is to get out viable product and rapidly iterate improvements.
-
If you think that octovalve is "just a heatpump"
Point to where I said that, please. EDIT: I just realized my "industry third" quote could be misinterpreted. I meant that they were the third to release an advanced heat pump system. Theirs is arguably the best, but the other two are quite impressive.
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 new permanent magnet motor tech to increase efficiency on the S and X? Yeah, Prius did that first.
I'm actually quite an enthusiast. I love energy and efficiency and all of that. I'm not saying what Tesla is don't isn't impressive. But if you ONLY watch Tesla videos on youtube, you're going to think they're the only ones innovating whatsoever. Perhaps the hype machine that they've built is what their valuation really is. Gonna be pretty hard to make any space in the marketplace if Tesla gets credit for everyone else's innovations (as well as theirs).
I don't know that the Tesla inverter is anything special yet.
Which is fine. My point is exactly this. It's just an inverter. Probably even just a re-badged one like they use in their Powerwall. Which is totally fine; companies do that all the time! Same reason so many car companies use the same airbag manufacturer. No reason to re-invent everything everytime.
-
The new permanent magnet motor tech to increase efficiency on the S and X? Yeah, Prius did that first.
Hey now, the "old" induction motor was actually the higher performance unit, but I guess they decided improving efficiency was more important than the advantages an induction motor offers. (Fair enough; efficiency is important!)
-
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.
-
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.
There were a lot of organizational issues to overcome with the Solar City acquisition. Painful ones. They retooled the whole customer acquisition model, jettisoned the rather expensive (and sometimes shady) sales force. And the technical side was focused on getting the Solar Roof (integrated shingle product) working well enough.
-
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.
Got any links to a real technical teardown? I see a lot of marketing fluff, and stuff like this:
https://insideevs.com/news/460193/nextmove-heat-pump-vw-id3-less-efficient/
-
$850 invested in Tesla a couple weeks ago worth $600 now.
I guess any investment is good if you get in and out with the right timing.
-
Howard Marks says that good investing is not a function of buying good things, it is a function of buying things well. No asset is of such a high quality that you can't overpay for it and lose money, and no asset is so intrinsically bad that it can't be a good investment at a low enough price.
He says this of this experience in the Nifty 50 and then junk bonds:
"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. "
-
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/07/tech/elon-musk-net-worth/index.html
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.html
Elon Musk's net worth plunged last week as tech stocks got hammered and Tesla shares' stunning rise quickly unraveled.
Yeah, it fell all the way down to its 12/2020 price!
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.html
Elon Musk's net worth plunged last week as tech stocks got hammered and Tesla shares' stunning rise quickly unraveled.
Yeah, it fell all the way down to its 12/2020 price!
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?
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/39647/tesla-admits-current-full-self-driving-beta-will-always-be-a-level-2-system-emails
-
I think the news media is aiming at the "who is the richest" angle, with Musk falling behind Besos, who catches up, etc. Kinda silly over whatever time frame.
If they instead said Tesla has fallen 25% over the past month, that seems less like a 24 hour news story to me.
SpaceX is conducting experiments and gaining understanding... I mean, or the media can show pictures of stuff blowing up. One guess which angle they take...
-
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/07/tech/elon-musk-net-worth/index.html
Elon Musk's net worth plunged last week as tech stocks got hammered and Tesla shares' stunning rise quickly unraveled.
Yeah, it fell all the way down to its 12/2020 price!
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?
Considering how difficult it is to even launch a rocket, it’s truly astonishing that they can land one (on a target platform no less).
Imagine what will be possible by 2100 at the rate things are going :)
-
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/10/investing/elon-musk-net-worth/index.html
yesterday - he was up 25 billion...
-
No robot taxis anytime soon?
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/39647/tesla-admits-current-full-self-driving-beta-will-always-be-a-level-2-system-emails
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.
-
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?
Yeah, the press is all in the OldSpace mode of things like the SLS that take over a decade to build, expensive aerospace parts and billions of dollars. SpaceX is spending a few weeks just welding up some standard stainless in a shed out on the mudflats. Costs are more like $10M for one prototype, if that much. Less if they can actually recover the Raptors instead of blowing up ;)
-
No robot taxis anytime soon?
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/39647/tesla-admits-current-full-self-driving-beta-will-always-be-a-level-2-system-emails
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.
The Tesla email says "a final release of City Streets will continue to be an SAE Level 2, advanced driver-assistance feature."
"City Streets" will always be Level 2. What feature was added to make "Full Self-Driving Beta"?
-
No robot taxis anytime soon?
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/39647/tesla-admits-current-full-self-driving-beta-will-always-be-a-level-2-system-emails
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.
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.
-
When inflation rises, it's treated like a compounding savings account: earnings 5 years from now are divided by 5 years inflation. So companies like Tesla with exponential growth prospects have most of their earnings in the future, and get hit hardest when inflation rises.
Fears of inflation would seem to hit Tesla harder than other companies, because of it's high P/E value. That could be a factor in Tesla dropping in February. So if that repeats during the reopening, Tesla could take further hits to it's stock price.
-
No robot taxis anytime soon?
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/39647/tesla-admits-current-full-self-driving-beta-will-always-be-a-level-2-system-emails
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.
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.
Waymo has had Level 4 Autonomous driving on public streets since 2017
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waymo
-
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 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...
-
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%.
-
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.
-
No robot taxis anytime soon?
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/39647/tesla-admits-current-full-self-driving-beta-will-always-be-a-level-2-system-emails
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.
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.
Waymo has had Level 4 Autonomous driving on public streets since 2017
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waymo
Waymo has had Level 4 Autonomous driving on a very restricted number of pre-mapped-to-the-mm-level public streets since 2017 and shown little (if any) ability to generalize their solution in the ensuing 4 years. Perhaps they are trapped at a "local maximum" as Tesla has said they were before the full rewrite leading to the 8.x iterations of FSD
-
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)
-
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.
I think you're the only person here who has mentioned personally shorting tesla. Did you make a lot of money on the short?
-
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
-
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)
A sign of a good argument is starting it off by a personal insult.
-
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.
-
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)
If you chose to insult me perhaps you should read my post again. I did not say anything about the future of Tesla and or their business plan. I made a statement and why I shorted ARKK. You are dense to think the past is the present and the shorts that have lost in the past have not made a ton of money of late. But then again I cant speak for Tesla as I shorted ARKK. So if I am dense then you better take a hard look in the mirror and perhaps reconsider the position you must be holding on to so desperately trying to defend for some reason. Wish you the best and great fortune.
-
Emotions are rampant in the investment community right now especially around Bitcoin and tsla.I’ll admit I have had some butthurt thoughts about not buying tsla (and many other missed opportunities). I personally don’t think the stock will “grow into its P/E ratio” especially with all of the zoomers getting stimulus checks and potentially driving the price up higher. That being said on something this where it is more of a cult like following I can’t feel confident that it will all crash back down as mmm suggested either in a recent article either. Feels like a coin flip to me.
Note: Also a personal bias may have crept in earlier on because the cars look dorky to me besides the roadster, kind of like those pants that zip off into shorts (no offense to those who wear them lol).
-
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.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/cars/volkswagen-voltswagen-securities-law/index.html
-
Really impressive Q1 production numbers, though apparently the S/X line upgrade is taking long than anticipated - zero new S/X in 1Q.
-
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.
-
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.
It seems to me that Tesla is incredibly far behind on their truck development... unless they have been hiding their progress and are about to finally show a few updates other than what they've shown so far (which is compared to it's competitors next to nothing).
-
Yeah, Ford killed it. Ford's offering puts way more pressure on Rivian than Tesla. The R1T is in a tough spot with the Lightning being so much cheaper. Not to mention all the pressure on GM's plans for an electric Silverado.
The Cybertruck has a market. It is a better off road vehicle than either due to approach angles, ground clearance and utilitarian body materials. I still think it'll sell very well. FSD is improving rapidly. It will be the Cybertruck's killer app. The deposit numbers dwarf everything else. One reason is lock in price for FSD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ARiJSGvfww (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ARiJSGvfww) So many videos of it doing amazing things in the hands of consumers not just engineer demos. If they don't having it at a mostly usable spot when the Cybertruck launches, that could put some downward pressure on those deposits turning into sales.
-
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.
Tesla to stop accepting Bitcoin as payment (CBC) (https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/tesla-bitcoin-payment-1.6024633)
-
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.
Momentum investing has an entry point and an exit point. Many people forget about the latter until it's too late.
-
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.
This is why any stock you are hearing about on media / social media is probably not "a good investment".
At one point I considered simulating a short fund based on the number of times a stock is mentioned on Yahoo Finance, Motley Fool, or Seeking Alpha.
-
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.
on the other hand - I'm amazed the chatting went on so long! What more is there to say?
-
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.
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."
-
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)
-
I enjoy the fact that Tesla is now included in the S&P500 and I /most of us get plenty of exposure to Tesla that way. I'm along for the ride, I even got a decent amount of runup over the last few years from Tesla since I was a total stock market investor rather than an S&P500 investor.
-
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)
That was crazy! Do you think it is really possible?
I would 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?
-
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."
One of the most interesting quotes I have heard from a statistician (whom I forgot the name) is:
"You cannot determine the quality of a decision by it's outcome"
I've thought a lot about that quote, and in part it seems to have some existential and free will implications. And it can't be applied to much so it's not very practical. It's kind of in line with: "Improbable things happen all the time"
Without being too handwavy, I'm not too convinced with the outcomes of many of these things. Someone playing with the deck stacked against them could have a cosmic 1/100 chance of success and do everything right to get that to a 3/100 chance. Despite tripling their opportunity, they still end up with a poor dice roll and look to have made a bad decision. On the other hand someone could start with a 3/100 chance of success, screw it all up to a 1/100 chance of success, but get that lucky roll and appear to be a strategic genius despite doing everything wrong. There's no real way of evaluating the quality of a decision or action based on the outcome because we don't have a control to test against, or multiple universes to run trials. Butterfly effect and all of that. That's not to downplay any of it either... it's just ambiguous.
-
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.
-
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.
Ahhh, that makes sense. It would be pretty humorous for the stock price to double in price in the near term (6-12 months) after all the Tesla is overpriced rants following the last run up.
-
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.
-
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.
To be clear, the nontraditional or yoke steering wheel is currently only present on the Model S Plaid car, which is their top line vehicle. The vast majority of the the vehicles they sell (95%) have a traditional, round steering wheel. There is speculation that the yoke steering will allow the steering “wheel" to tuck away neatly up under the dash when true level 5 FSD is achieved and a retractable steering wheel would allow for another comfortable passenger seat in the vehicle. Lastly, the vast majority of reviews of the Plaid Model S indicate the use of the yoke steering wheel is a quick and easy adaptation.
Tesla does push the envelope. They engineer vehicles from the ground up using first principles. You don’t push the envelope and move an entire industry forward without pushing the limits of change and change is never completely comfortable. Critiques and disapproval of individual design elements are fair and to be expected, but seem to be missing the forest for the trees in my opinion. For some folks it might be a bridge too far, but you’ll never please everyone any way.
The Cybertruck is funky looking at first too. But again here, there is sound reasoning behind the design. The unpainted, angular body is pressed from a single piece of stainless steel. By eliminating most of the welds and the need for a paint shop, the price decreases and the durability and strength increases. Tesla promotes utility, efficiency, and pragmatism over traditional aesthetics.
-
I purchased a Model Y over the weekend. I've made over a $1million on Tesla stock and options and feel comfortable supporting their products and services even though it's incongruent with the mustachian mindset. In the last quarter, Tesla had 25% gross margin after regulatory credits in comparison to the 13% of F, GM, and TM. I wonder if the profit after credits made Michael Burry a little shaky on his $530 million short based on regulatory credits.
Anyways, the Model Y doesn't come until December. They're selling a ton of them.
-
Has Tesla provided any guidance about the chip shortage? Are they affected or not? Or perhaps the shortage is enabling them to conquer market share?
-
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?
-
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?
huh? we were talking about a video that someone posted a link to.
-
Do you believe it will eventually earn 8x what Toyota does and 25x what GM does?
[/quote]
Toyota and GM don't put solar panels on peoples' roofs as far as I know, and they probably aren't exploring making video games. Tesla believes that once they have mastered FSD, people will want to play video games while driving.
The Tesla FSD comparison with Waymo/Google makes sense, but we don't compare their FSD products to Toyota because they have none.
Bill Gates famously licensed DOS to IBM and other PC makers. They all sold his product for him.
If Tesla wins the FSD race, they could easily license it to all the high-end luxury brands. Who would spend $250k on a Bentley or a Maserati but not add another $10k for FSD?
Tesla could take over the taxi and trucking industries.
They are making factories at an incredible rate. They're making a $25k model in China and they are going to build a factory in Bangalore to mass-produce a vehicle that the middle/upper middle class in India can actually afford.
Telsa has the most efficient batteries in the world.
They have other innovations like the best crash safety features, superior air filters, hell, even better paint and seats.
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
I compared it to other automakers because that's where the conversation was centered. You're right that Tesla does have a lot of opportunity to move into other markets, especially power. I'm not saying that Tesla couldn't sustainably triple in value, just that it would take tripling expectations that are already extremely high. To compare to the big tech companies as you're mentioning, it's already ~7th for market cap and tripling would put it 3rd behind on Apple and Microsoft and ahead of Amazon and Alphabet/Google. I'm not saying that it couldn't happen; I'm just reframing what you're implying if you expect another big jump for TSLA.
-
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.
-
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). The market is forward looking. I was also trying to say imagine continuing growth through the rest of the decade. I think it means it's a fantastic investment.
-
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.
Understood. There is definitely a growth multiplier in play.
It doesn't explain why Tesla is at ~350 PE and GOOG is at ~30 PE. Google had a YOY revenue growth of 68% last quarter and its profits were $18/$61B. Tesla had a 98% revenue growth and its profits were $1/$12B.
Now, Tesla did have nearly 1000% profit growth last quarter YOY (compared to GOOG's 166%). Is that type of profit growth expected to continue? That seems unlikely.
That doesn't mean the stock won't rise but it won't be on traditional fundamentals.
-
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?
Toyota is doggedly avoiding the transition to BEVs - sure, they have made some efforts and reluctantly put some plugs on a tiny fraction of hybrids while wasting billions on a hydrogen boondoggle. If they don't turn things around quite soon, I can see them being bankrupt in a decade.
-
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.
-
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.
Mazda: "Why u copying our brands?"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Right, it's what the value of the puts were on the 13f as of 6/30. He added in Q2. He said they were long puts. I'm interested because he said Tesla could only make a profit with credits. The puts were purchased before the Q2 earnings in July put that to bed. So I'm curious what he does now.
-
I wonder how deeply he really dug into the company if he bought the "only profitable with credits" narrative
-
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.
Thanks for the welcome!
we are definitely at/coming up to a final crossroads, and that's why my next car is going to be a tesla. And my next roof.
-
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.
Jesse Livermore shorted the great depression, and died bankrupt.
past performance is not guarantee of future results...
and all that rot....
-
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/27/business/tesla-electricity/index.html
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."
https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2021/08/20/tesla-bot-humanoid-robot-lon-orig-na.cnn-business/video/playlists/business-news/
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.
interesting developments!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
5,214.01 as of right 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.
sadly, this is too true.
-
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.
Nope, that's not how the grid works.
> I suspect renewable generation can be over built to provide a buffer as well
Technically, it could... but it's only at 11% of total production right now. And that production is largely the easiest to produce (in optimal areas AND at optimal times). As renewables increase in ubiquity, we will be able to use less of them. If a solar farm is producing sun right now, 100% of it goes into the grid. If we "overbuild" it, soon there will a graduating scale of efficiency losses (transmission, batteries, etc).
Basically, it's not possible to use renewables to meet our emissions goals. We need other non-polluting methods. Namely, Nuclear.
Transmission lines get congested. Batteries degrade. Residential backup for non-critical systems for a couple of days is no where NEAR the grid stability we need on a commercial and industrial scale.
I don't have time to write all of this out... but it's more than just using transmission lines. We need to build multi billion dollar DC converters for high voltage DC transmission. The grid is incredibly complicated and not built with renewables in mind (although they are working to fix that)
There literally isn't enough lithium on the planet to provide nationwide battery storage. IF we do this on renewables+batteries alone, we will need to use something cheap like flow batteries. A large scale battery that reduces peak load for 6 hours is about the same cost as a peak gas plant. One that provides for 12 hours is twice as expensive as that same peak gas plant. And so on... a peaker gas plant that can handle production outages for 5 days is 20X cheaper than the battery equivalent. Batteries just don't scale well (especially expensive lithium ones). We need pumped hydro or thermal storage or something that reduces cost with scale.
Battery backup providing 15kWh to a house is nothing. What do you do for a food production facility that needs 150,000kWh to run? Install 5000 power walls? What if that facility needs 2 days of full power (not "conservative usage") Now you install 10,000 power walls? A facility isn't going to spent 75million on batteries that can only last two days. Either personally or on the grid.
I say all of this because I think we are chasing the wrong pot of gold here. I want the grid to be carbon free... and we're using the treasures of low hanging "renewable" fruit too much it will get harder and harder to use as it scales on the grid (contrary to many things in the market).
-
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.
No… In Germany where I live we have more than 100% renewable energy, because we have a lot of wind. The area here is mainly agricultural and animal farming. We don‘t have the power lines to transmit energy from here just 500 miles south where all the industries are which is why we take a lot of wind turbines offline. I participated in a study that tried to find out how to at least motivate people to use power when wind power is available, but two years later I still do not see any result of that study.
-
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
-
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.
-
What software does Tesla sell as a service? (Do they sell non-EV software?)
Tesla responded to the chip shortage by buying slightly different chips, and adapting the firmware those chips use to interact with the car. So they should definitely come out ahead of Ford, who had worse chip problems than most automakers.
Looks like everyone will know more next week.
https://ir.tesla.com/press
"AUSTIN, Texas, October 8, 2021 – Tesla will post its financial results for the third quarter of 2021 after market close on Wednesday, October 20, 2021."
-
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.
Side note: No production/sellable cars have come off the lines as far as we know. Pilot cars have definitely come off the Austin line, possibly Berlin as well. Part of the process of tuning the assembly line.
-
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.
-
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
i may be too frightened to look! I'm up over 15k on my buy. It's tought not to throw a whole lot more money into it.
People keep saying it's too late to cash in on tesla.....but.....I'm up 23% in 2 months. S&P is flat over same time period.....and that is including tesla in the mix!! yikes.
Can I please go back in time and add more :)
-
I looked!
not too frightening, except speculation about tesla possibly becoming the biggest company in the world.
well then! I'll have to think on that!!
-
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.
-
$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.
-
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.
"just a trade"
pfft!
-
earning release in about an hour? 4:30 ET?
What will it say.......
-
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.
Also $10/month for premium connectivity. All these add up. More will come.
Tesla has not really put too much focus on its energy storage business yet. The insurance business will grow and will add to their cash flow.
It's not too late to invest in Tesla.
-
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.
-
Tesla passes FB in valuation for the moment.
This is the best thing I've heard today. I don't own any Tesla (or FB) outside of index funds but if there were ever two companies that were more diametrically different in social impact and actual usefulness, I can't think of them.
-W
-
Stock currently trading at intraday all-time high (~$909).
909? such old news!!
-
Data point for everyone: Yesterday morning my model 3 drove me across Anchorage, Alaska all on it's own. Turns, stoplights, roundabouts, the whole deal. Tesla is rolling out autonomy to the masses. Be ready.
-
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.
Not bad for a company that was going through bankruptcy six months ago.
-
$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.
The past has gone very well for $TSLA. Would that there were no risk in the present.
-
>$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.
-
>$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 think I read through it before, but I did it again just now to see what you referred to. When I first started reading this thread - I'd say a lot of the sentiments were the same. Every advance was discounted, the leaf, value too high, and then the moaning about tesla being inducted into the sp500, the bellyaching!
Glad I decided at last to jump on the tesla train. up over 50% in just a few months.
-
so - I guess the big question is what's the next tesla coming down the road (punny!), and how will we recognize it?
-
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?
-
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 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'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?
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!
-
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.
-
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.
Ouch. He didn't say Telsa can do no wrong. He gave an opinion and said he personally wouldn't be selling shares for a few years. Your tone doesn't change my opinion of anything except your character.
-
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!
-
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.
Tesla’s PE ratio is trending down rapidly. GM has announced 12 electric models, but that includes variants, so it’s really 3-4 distinct models. Announcing bold plans and building prototypes is easy. Scaling to mass production is orders of magnitude more difficult. The limiting factor for Tesla has been its battery supply. Battery supply will be the issue for all OEMs for several years to come. Tesla is best positioned in this regard as well. I’m rooting for the legacy auto companies to succeed. We need to speed this transition as quickly as possible, but count me as skeptical until production of any of these current or planned legacy auto EV models reach scale (100,000+/yr).
-
I remember ripping on the Apple fanboys way back when. Ooops!
Often one is most critical of that which one is most passionate about. I don't critique knitting because I couldn't be bothered by it...
I genuinely, truly, hope Tesla makes out to be as good as the market projects for the foreseeable future. Valuation isn't everything (as pointed out very concisely by Waltworks when comparing Tesla and Facebook). Both may have good reason to be at the top of the game... but that might not be a Good thing. I already think that Tesla has changed the market, but I also think that there is some inconsistent analysis done.
For instance: the claim that Tesla is 10 years in front of the competition so of course they are valuated higher than the likes of Ford and GM. Analogies to Netflix and Blockbuster are often thrown around in the same structure. I'm... not so sure. Those have the taste of psychological tricks... all the markings of misplaced confidence that we've seen since tracking the stock market. Just because these companies are 10 years behind in a couple of metrics now doesn't mean they will be in a few years. Hockey stick growth doesn't look all that special until after all the hard work has been put in. It could also be that Tesla is doing all of the hard work of enticing early adopters and some other company will sweep in an reap the benefits. In other words, what if GM manages to become only a year or two behind Tesla technology... but selling 50x as many electric vehicles... how does that play into things? What does 10x better even mean? If the Ford Lightening only has M3 tech in it but is a reasonable price, I'm totally cool with that .M3 tech is already more than I need anyway. Etc. I'm just rambling here.
Also, the analysis of capital flow, debts, etc. all seem off to me. It comes across as a conclusion in search of supporting data. I know ColoradoTribe is just speaking abbreviated here and he/she has undoubtedly spent much more time analyzing more thorough arguments for their opinions. I just don't have much trust of those opinions based off of the religious overtone to them.
-
How dare you speak blasphemy against Lord Elon!
I’m not here to "convert" anyone. We’re all adults capable of reaching our own conclusions. I could fill a lengthy post on ways Tesla could improve or with things they have gotten wrong, but I feel no need to prove my objectivity to anyone. More importantly, nothing on that list materially effects my core investment thesis. The “competition is coming” is just the soup de jour of the naysayers, some well-intentioned, some paid shills.
Tesla can’t build a compelling EV
There’s no demand
Tesla can’t scale production
The cars are poorly made
The cars catch fire spontaneously
Demand will dry up.
Tesla is going bankrupt
Tesla can’t turn a profit
Tesla can’t turn a profit with government subsidies
Tesla can’t turn a profit without ZEV credits
Demand is drying up (again)
Over the course of all those doomsday narratives, folks have consistently claimed that Tesla’s SP was overvalued. What has been true is that Tesla’s SP has ran ahead of Tesla’s execution at times, but does one really expect to buy stock in a company that’s growing 50% YOY for current value? Of course you’re going to pay a premium. Having held most of my shares for the period of 2013 - 2019, I would argue that Tesla was significantly undervalued for much of that and what folks claimed was a crazy, runaway valuation in 2019 was really the market waking up to what Tesla had accomplished over that period and the SP catching up to that reality.
-
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
For starters, you are assuming Tesla has the same margins as the traditional OEMs when stating Tesla would need to sell as many cars as all the other car manufacturer’s combined to justify their valuation. In Q3, Tesla’s auto margin was 30%, or roughly double that of traditional OEMs. Ford’s margin was 7% in Q2. Teslas margins will only improve as production scales further at the already existing factories and battery prices continue to drop. The traditional OEM margins will continue to fall as they try to simultaneously design and ramp EV lines, while maintaining their ICE production lines. So, if Tesla ends up making the same number cars as Ford in a year, Tesla will achieve two or three times the profit off the same number of sales. That’s before we factor in energy storage, utility grid services (software), FSD, insurance, solar PV and solar roof, infotainment subscription services, robot axis, etc.
Will all of these business lines be huge winners? Certainly not, they don’t have to be for Tesla to be successful, just one or two would be enough to double or triple valuation from here. I don’t invest on hope either. I do trust Tesla/Elon and that trust, that they will consistently, if not belatedly, execute their vision, has paid out 35 fold as of today’s close. Also helps to have superior products and engineering talent.
As for PE, it’s rather absurd to value a growth company (50% YOY) using a metric best suited for mature companies. That said, Tesla’s PE is rapidly dropping despite maintaining their rapid growth. Tesla current PE ratio is ~350, down from 1,150 at the endow 2020, and despite the stock price being at ATHs.
-
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
At this point I'd be content with stock price stagnation for a good while. It's happened to TSLA for extended periods before and is preferable to it plummeting and also preferable to selling at these prices, paying capital gains, and missing out on potential future gains.
-
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?
-
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?
What am I missing here on the insurance thing? It's been brought up more than once and I haven't had an adequate answer. What is so special about Tesla insurance?
-
Nothing much. Currently Tesla insurance is there to provide competition, so Tesla owners get fair insurance pricing.
Long term it's setting the stage for Tesla to offer robotaxi rides by having the liability already sorted as they have an established insurance relationship, and data to prove the risk.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FC8V345WUAIr62w?format=png&name=small)
-
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.
-
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!
Apple has had a reasonable P/E for a very long time. Not a good comparison.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Maybe PEG is a better ratio? It takes into account expected growth.
https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/tsla/price-earnings-peg-ratios
-
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
-
Unlike many other companies in tech, Tesla’s numbers are relatively easy to forecast. Number of cars, ASP, and either current or predicted margin growth. It’ll become more difficult as more software and other services become a larger part of the sales mix, but sales in 2022 are looking to be 1.6 millionish. 2023 will easily be 2 million+. PE Ratio today on a Company with that kind of growth is a goofy metric. Their cash flow, ROIC, and balance sheet are phenomenal. Other auto makers balance sheets are poor in comparison.
-
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.....
-
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.....
This is an interesting practice... now maybe on the next walk you can use the common debate tactic and try to think of support the counterpoint (just for kicks- i.e. why is Tesla different from Apple?).
I, too, am highly interested in a MY in the future. I'm kind of waiting because a) I don't drive enough to justify one and b) I'm curious about what is in the piepline for all of the other players. The Rivian looks absolutely amazing for a luxury vehicle (again, can't justify that personally). Volkswagen id4 seems to be the vehicle of choice for those who want an EV but are more traditional vehicle buyers (not tech or performance savvy). Ford lightning looks like it has a lot of utility, etc. I am eyeing e-bikes to get my tech fix- something which undoubtedly benefit from the lower lithium prices driven down in part by Tesla.
-
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.
-
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:
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:
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 market 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'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:
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.
What?
|__| ----> |__|
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
A lot of small cap oriented funds were buying Tesla during its pre-SP500 days, and this benefitted me, indirectly. My early comments on this thread would identify me as a "sell side" wrt. Tesla, and I'm grateful that laziness kept me from putting my money at risk.
-
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 now has a greater market cap than the next top 10 (or, by this point, top 20) auto makers combined. Is it in the long run worth more than them, or is this a short-term speculative bubble? Leaving aside the other technological fields Tesla may be expected to achieve dominance in, one way this valuation in comparison with the other companies may be justified in the long term is if there is a high chance that most other auto makers will be bought out by Tesla (before it is dominant enough for antitrust laws to prevent that) or go bankrupt, and possibly, Tesla be in a position to acquire assets at a bargain.
Also, the plants and production lines currently able to produce a lot of cars may be a liability rather than an asset in five or ten years, if they can't be adapted to meet future demands and desires.
Disclaimer: I own Tesla stock. And I sold some of it last week at around 1060, as it had become too great a part of my portfolio.
-
IMO the best case scenario for Tesla's auto business is to be like Toyota in the 80s - pretty dominant but far from a majority of the market. Add ancillary businesses and you'd have a sort of international level Zaibatsu.
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.
So for better or worse, I see Tesla's business ceiling as a lot lower than some people here do (it's still pretty freaking high, though). As long as the world ends up a better place I'm ok with that (and I suspect Elon Musk is too). Tesla scaring the bejeezus out of every other car maker on the planet is a great thing - but it doesn't mean Teslas will be the only cars you can buy in a decade or two.
-W
-
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?
This really is a genius move.
1) It ensures Tesla will qualify for any available “public” charging infrastructure subsidies.
2) It exposes non-Tesla EV owners to the speed and convenience of Tesla supercharger network. Where these drivers will inevitably chat with Tesla owners and compare products.
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.
4) It brings in some additional revenue that can be immediately deployed to further expand their network and deepen their charging moat.
5) It draws further attention to the other OEMs lack of dedicated, level 3 charging infrastructure.
Revenue wise, I did some quick napkin math. Looks like Tesla is charging about $20 USD for the subscription in the Norwegian pilot program. Assuming it gets rolled out everywhere Tesla has built out the network, you could likely see 1 million subscribers in a year or two from now. A million subscribers at $240/yr and you’re looking at nearly a quarter billion of almost pure profit. Only cost to Tesla is some software engineering time and maybe some charging adapters. Brilliant!
Same with the Hertz deal. The Brilliance is not selling 100,000 vehicles. The brilliance is that each of these cars will be giving (free to Tesla) dozens of test drives to folks who may never have sat behind the wheel of an EV or a Tesla. Tom Brady is the spokesperson for Hertz’s ad campaign promoting their use of Teslas as rental vehicles. So, effectively, Tesla has Tom Brady advertising their vehicles and didn’t pay a dime. In fact, Tesla has accomplished everything to date with barely a cent spect on paid advertising. Spending on advertising would be a waste while they’re still supply constrained. Compare that to the advertising budgets fo Ford and GM.
Lastly, while I do have a ton of respect for Elon’s drive and intelligence, I don’t enjoy all his antics. His sense of humor can be juvenile. I don’t care for his politics, which trend toward libertarian. I wish he’d spend less time on Twitter. But none of that really matters because I know EM is laser focused on the mission and I don’t have to love him on a personal level.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
you certainly called that one! What a ride!
-
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?
1221 in post market.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
Japan is the only country I see going full on protectionist as their auto manufacturers struggle with declining sales.
Europe might slow walk autonomous vehicle regulation, but that just means Tesla will build their fleet elsewhere, and then flood Europe when regulation passes.
-
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.
-
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=3ed2c25012e6
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?
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.
-
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.
The last time I advocated a buy was on 10/21 when TSLA was at $894 when the risk was much lower(see my post on 10/21). After the recent run-up, the risk is much higher. In the long run, the stock is gonna be up and down. If anyone really wants to build a position now, I would suggest buying 1/5 of what you want to ultimately own and then let it come down and slowly buy a little at a time until you have a full position.
-
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
-
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
There is always a possibility for another company to catch up or even surpass Tesla. It's also possible that Tesla will fail. There is nothing certain in the stock market. That's why you determine the risk and bet accordingly. Never bet the farm on one thing, at least I won't. Before the huge run-up, Tesla was such an asymmetric bet for the people who saw it - 50% downside, multi-bagger upside. That's why it has been so heavily debated. 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.
-
Before the huge run-up, Tesla was such an asymmetric bet for the people who saw it - 50% downside, multi-bagger upside.
That's basic stock gambling reasoning, though. Extrapolated to the market, If I invested in every company that had huge potential and 50% downside, I wouldn't make any significant gains because my share of each company would be so small. I would, however, achieve great overall average gains through index investing. In retrospect, Tesla looks like a great investment. I'm not claiming absolutely that it could not be predicted as the earlier scribtions in this thread would "prove" me wrong. I'm saying that in the present, it is impossible to differentiate between that stance and one that will fail. It's literally impossible to predict the future. For every success that "the people who saw it", there is a failure hidden from us. The market in general is growing, so we should expect to have more visuals of wins as there will be more extremes on that tail of the curve as well.
There is also an interesting point about decisions that I like to point out. The outcome of a decision isn't a reliable indicator of the quality of that decision (at least to the point that we emphasize it is). For any complex decision, it is impossible to measure the odds of success because all of the variables can't be accounted for. So we don't know if someone has a 1/100 chance or a 90/100 chance of getting something right. In the former case, if someone alters their ecosystem to the point of doubling their chances of success, effectively a 2/100 chance of getting it right, they may still look like a failure when they don't succeed. Alternately, someone could screw up royally and turn a 90/100 chance into a 5/100 chance, but get a lucky roll of the dice and appear to know what they're doing. There's a lot jumbled in there, and it's kind of admittedly hand-wavy to any success or anyone who had spent a ton of time researching and evaluating Tesla stock. But it is always floating in the back of my head.
I don't disparage people making $ this way... I am just saying that because we can't run simultaneous experiments changing only single variables, it's literally impossible to decipher it beyond conjecture. It's a Schrodinger's cat. And I do think that people should invest in things they believe in. I personally am happy Tesla is doing great but don't have the time or means to evaluate every company I believe in, much less have any re-assuring way of deciphering any outcomes without a heavy dose of luck (either bad or good).
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.
I worded that poorly: I was intending to say that I personally wasn't saying that it couldn't happen. But followed that caveat by saying "no one" which I typed out habit, which does make my statement wrong. I take that bit back.
-
I appreciate your comments, StashingAway. I understand where you're coming from.
Also to clarify, it's not just the percentages of upside and downside we need to consider, it's also the probability of success and failure. From Charlie Munger:
"Regarding risk taking/decision making - take the probability of loss times the amount of possible loss from the probability of gain times the amount of possible gain"
The probability and the amount values in the equation are super hard to determine. We all need to find our edge and invest accordingly. I learned a lot from Charllie Munger.
-
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=3ed2c25012e6
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?
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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
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...
If BP stations offered way more locations, the locations were evenly distributed so you can go anywhere in the country, the BP pumps fit your car, and the BP pumped faster saving you 10-30 minutes per stop, then that’d be a good analogy.
Supercharging revenue will be relatively small compared to auto revenue, but 100s of millions per year isn’t insignificant either.
The real advantage here is why would people buy a EV that doesn’t have free access to the world’s best charging network? Allowing other EVs to access the network for a fee will only drive Tesla sales.
-
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.
If it's DC powered, then it's a DC fast charger per the US gov (where the maps above came from):
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure.html
Only V3 Superchargers are 250kw as far as I know, with some Superchargers capable of just 75kw:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Supercharger
"The original V1 and V2 Tesla supercharging stations charge with up to 150 kW of power distributed between two cars with a maximum of 150 kW per car, depending on the version...In September 2017, Tesla announced the availability of urban Superchargers. The urban Superchargers are more compact than the standard Supercharger stalls, and will be primarily deployed in urban areas such as mall parking lots and garages. Compared to the standard Superchargers, urban Superchargers have a maximum power delivery of 72 kW. Instead of 150 kW distributed between two vehicles at a Supercharger A/B stall pair, each Urban Supercharger stall provides dedicated 72 kW capacity...Tesla makes V3 superchargers at Giga New York. Tesla first opened V3 stations in 2019, and they can provide up to 15 miles per minute (depending on circumstances). A 1 MW charge box supplies 4 stalls at 250 kW each."
Supercharging is also not free for many Tesla owners per the wiki link above:
"Unlimited supercharging for life is free for all Model S and Model X cars that were ordered before January 15, 2017, or between August 2, 2019 and May 26, 2020, or for vehicles that were purchased using a referral code during certain periods.
Model S and Model X cars that were ordered between January 15, 2017, and November 2, 2018, received 400 kWh (about 1,000 miles or 1,600 km) of free Supercharging credits per year. Once those credits are used, supercharging will have a fee, but that fee is lower than filling up a gas-powered car.
Between May 2017 and September 18, 2018, Tesla allowed existing Tesla owners to give free unlimited supercharging for life to up to five friends if the friend purchased a new Tesla and used their referral code. Tesla also offered all existing Tesla owners who purchased a new Model S, Model X or Performance Model 3 for themselves with free unlimited supercharging for life on those cars.
From time to time, Tesla has offered 1,000 or 2,000 miles of free supercharging as an incentive to purchase a new Tesla car.
Other than the above caveats, Tesla Model S and Model X cars purchased between November 2, 2018, and August 2, 2019, and all Model 3 and Model Y cars purchased at any time do not receive any supercharging credits.
Again, I agree that it's a positive move for the company to open the Supercharger network to others. It makes lots of sense. It's basically gravy for them. But we know that the vast majority of Tesla owners (and all EV owners) charge at home. Fast charging (on Tesla's network or not) is really only used by outlying cases where people can't charge at home or for lengthy roadtrips that don't happen very often statistically speaking. That's a big reason why Tesla has been willing to give it away for free to some owners in the past. Add to those facts that EV owners likely have other non-Tesla options as well for fast charging near them, and the pie gets smaller still.
All I'm really saying is that any revenue generated from this recent change is likely to be pretty small. Profitable and sensible, but small in the grand scheme. I don't understand the resistance on that point. I'm not even saying anything negative about Tesla, just suggesting that they have some competition, and something that is definitely still a positive choice for the company may not be massively successful. I'll step away from the discussion now since it's apparent that any post that isn't "TSLA to the moon!!!?!" is out of place.
-
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.
-
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/
I'm not trying to debate which charging network is more superior, but I'd like to point out that the 2 maps you attached don't tell the whole picture. Each green dot in the maps represents a charging station, and each Tesla charging station usually has 8 charging ports and sometimes a lot more. Non-Tesla stations have 1 charging port. You can see the port numbers by clicking on a green dot and then clicking on the '+' sign to drill down. The NREL report https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80684.pdf linked by the arstechnica article shows that Tesla has the lion's share of high speed chargers.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
In the short to medium term this is likely true, but you're thinking only in terms of what the costs are right now. Roofs are expensive even if you're just putting regular shingles or tiles on. At a certain point eventually, the cost of solar shingles/tiles and battery storage will be much less relative to the cost of re-roofing a house which you have to eventually do anyway. At that point it won't make sense not to spend a little extra and get power from your roof instead of spending a bunch of money on installing asphalt shingles or ceramic tiles that don't produce anything.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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'm definitely looking into tesla roof and batteries for peace of mind on this.
I want to point out another option as well. You can get a metal roof + solar for about the cost of a Tesla roof. That metal roof will last 40-70 years (according to insurance actuators). Solar panels are typically warrantied for 25 years at 80% capacity. The former option allows you to replace/upgrade your panels in 25 years rather than having to replace the whole roof if the panels stop performing well. The Tesla roof is warrantied for 25 years for solar production. I'm sure the tiles last much longer, but it just seems like a bad idea to try to combine the tiles with the roof. I'd rather have the option of replacing just the solar should it be damaged or wear out.
If we are talking about efficiency (and I agree it doesn't matter much, what matters is $/watt), the new Tesla roof tiles are estimated at about 10% efficiency- a far cry from the current crop of straight solar panels. They don't publish their data so this is just estimated off tile size and kW from installed systems. That's why they're putting these tiles on all sides of the roof rather than the more maximum producing south or west facing ones.
The biggest reason to get the Tesla roof is aesthetics, which is fine for high income and high subsidy coastal California, but you're paying a premium for that. If you're worried about grid resiliency there are cheaper/better options. If you want a big solar system there are cheaper options (including just buying solar credits from much cheaper utility scale solar). It's not like electric vehicles where if you want the best one in any metric, Tesla is most often the #1 choice.
-
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
-
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.
I'm not sure what you are referring to here. I've been thinking about solar for a long time and made a decision about 2 years ago that I would go with Tesla for this when we do get a new roof. A lot of that decision is aesthetic. I think solar panels are just an eyesore, and when I found out about the tesla roof I was blown away and knew that was the direction I would go. Then found out about the powerwalls and I was delighted with the potential of the product.
I was explaining some of the aspects of my own personal decision, and why other methods are not as attactive and thinking that others may be similarly inclined.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-girl-saves-family-carbon-monoxide-iphone-20211104-k3462fyakndyres45vfw3shvty-story.html#:~:text=A%209%2Dyear%2Dold%20girl,local%20Fox%20affiliate%20WFXT%20reported.
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.
There may be other ways to get to solar, but I don't think that any of that is as pure and clean as your own off your roof with the tesla product. It likely won't serve 100% of our electic needs, but I am excited to see how much we can get.
And then plan my windmill :)
-
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
You may be too close to the issue, working in energy.
I'm not aware of any tesla marketing, just elon being an ass. I had to think calmly a few times and separate the company from the person, or I was in danger of putting tesla on my personal boycott list. He can be that provoking.
But I reasoned that there are probably plenty of CEOs that are far worse who just keep their mouths shut and I don't know about it. So, I need to focus on the company and the product.
Being not an energy-sector worker, I'm just a simple consumer, and I am sold on the products. I probably should have bought 2 years ago when I was first interested because the prices have gone up quite a bit. Glad to hear that they are improving the product, so I'll take that with the price increase.
I do hear you on the frustration front though, I'd like to get a quote on doing the garage roof, because that one needs replacing immediately but it seems like those types of quotes are not easily had and I'm not sure how to proceed.
-
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 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?
Edit: The house I'm building will be 100% electric. It has rainwater collection (and grey water recovery). It will be able to have solar panels facing due south, but I won't be able to afford those right off the bat. Use passive solar strategies to gain heat from winter sun and block summer sun. I am totally on board with taking combustion appliances out of the house (although I might be using a gas-powered backup generator, which is outside and may not ever be run, which is why I say "might") Even still, that is outside of the building envelope. I'm actually on the same page on a lot of things here! The grid in my build area experiences extremely few electrical blackouts and my house will be very efficient, meaning it will hold heat/cool in for a long time before electricity is needed. This is a side tangent.
-
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 not about to predict the future of Tesla's success... that's not what I'm getting at here. I'm actually focused a bit more on the latter part. The "consumer sentiments". Or, rather, "investor sentiments". I'm also hesitant to make any hard claims here, because there were plenty of people deep in automotive who didn't see EV's coming mainstream so fast and they sure were wrong. But... if the market Tesla valuation is taking things like grid batteries and solar roofs into account here (rather than just automotive), then that valuation is based on smoke and mirrors... but who knows... some of these new tech companies are making a killing on the "fake it till you make it" strategy. It's from people like you (not said in a derogatory way), who imagine what the grid looks like and then can only imagine Tesla's solution as the answer.
And to that last point... if something believed by enough people, it becomes the truth. Maybe Tesla roofs will succeed not because it makes sense, but because they market their way to the top. Does that make it right? Does it matter?
-
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?
You've communicated just fine. Your opinoin is that there are cheaper and more efficient alternatives. Now, whether or not that is true I have no way of knowing and I don't generally just beleive people on the internet, but for the sake of argument, let's say that that the metal roof and solar panels are both cheaper and more efficient. I'm still left with an eyesore on my roof, and have we factored into the cost of battery? 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.
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.
On my side, I don't understand why you don't understand that I'm not interested in the macgyver alternative to the tesla roof.
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!!!
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.
-
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!!!
You're almost right, but you get some bits of my argument incorrect that make your analysis of what I said misleading.
You don't need a generator with any of this. Let's leave my house out for now too. (that was just an anecdote to show you that I do care and I am thinking about this stuff all the time). I'm trying to help here. Can you tell I'm not in sales?
You can get integrated battery backup and a solar panel install just like a Tesla Roof + Powerwall. For cheaper. No mess or smell. Clean water collection. It's better in every way except aesthetics. In theory you could do standard solar and a Powerwall, but Tesla has stopped selling just Powerwalls due to supply issues. You have to buy their roof. It's not worth the roof to me to get the Powerwall, so I would just use one of the other myriad of backup battery options out there. You are aware that there are other battery backup options, right?
The Powerwall and Tesla Roof are only connected because Tesla will only sell them that way. In functionality, they are two completely different pieces of the electrical puzzle. You can install one or the other for different purposes it doesn't have to be a package.
The anecdote for the Tesla Roof that I can think of is over-the-range microwave hood vents. They work worse because the functionality of each isn't very compatible. The fact that it's a dual purpose means that it breaks more often (steam from the stove getting in all the electronics). And if one breaks you have to replace the whole unit. It's better to have a hood vent and separate microwave. Fittingly, despite this being a bad arrangement, it is common (showing that the Tesla roof may still succeed despite being a "bad" design).
-
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.
Erm.... the sun is still in the south for the most of the day in the summer, it just sets and rises north of the equator. And due to the filtration of the atmosphere, when it's settign and rising there is significantly less solar gain potential even with sun tracking panels. West facing panels are great for summer, though, because that's when heating load is highest and when you can benefit from the summer solar path the most. But south is generally still better if you only had one option (they will generate the most, even in summer, just not as much in the early or late hours of the day)
But aside from that, you can also put standard panels east and west. Or, you can fit more standard panels on your south facing roof (because they're more efficient than Teslas). It's never really beneficial to put solar on a north roof unless you don't have any more room on south/east/west roofs.
-
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.
-
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.
That depends entirely on location though right? Net metering policies are highly variable where they do exist and aren't a given to exist at all. Adequate solar energy isn't a given either. In parts of the West, with high intensity sunlight they probably work out great. In the Midwest or NE where it's mostly cloudy and days are short from November to March? Not so much.
The NG backup generator can power the entire house pretty much indefinitely regardless of weather conditions or season, costs less up front, likely lasts longer than the backup battery, and won't lose performance over time the way that batteries and solar panels can
-
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.
-
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 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 just logged into the forum after a long absence and saw this thread about whether Tesla is a good investment or not -- I bought Tesla with my gambling money back in 2017 ($6500 in a Roth IRA). I wanted a Tesla car but couldn't justify it; I joked that when the stock made enough to pay for a car I'd buy one.
I bought a Model S earlier this year; that initial $6500 purchase of shares is now worth $117k. I try to remember that was dumb luck and timing.. it could tank tomorrow.
-
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?
-
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?
Hopefully much longer in most cases. However, my brother recently showed me some metal roofs that rusted in less than 15 years on oceanfront properties in south FL (we grew up roofing, he is still doing it).
I actually agree that the Tesla roof is not there yet on cost or performance; I put metal roofs on my last two houses and will do metal roof/conventional solar panels on the house I'm building next year because I can do the labor myself and save money/gain performance.
-
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.
Thanks, I have a vision of a big ugly machine hauled out of the garage when the power fails. Might be a memory of my uncles farm back in the day on already antiquaited materials.
-
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 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.
That's their panels, and not their solar tiles, right? That's a pretty good price for that sized system... pretty wild that that same system would cost you $50,000 from other installers.
-
Yeah, just the panels.
-
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.
First, let me say that I do appreciate you have expertise in this area and your contributions to the discussion. I think nearly all of what you’ve said in this thread is true (as of today). But, as you yourself noted, there were a ton of supposedly super smart auto engineers at the big legacy auto companies and auto analysts on Wall Street that scoffed at Tesla's EV prospects. It can be detrimental being in an entrenched culture that’s always done it a certain way.
For example, you are correct that as of today, it does not make any financial success to install a Tesla solar roof as opposed to conventional panels on an existing roof. However, the goal of solar roof is to reach economies of scale, like they did in autos, such that the cost of installing a new solar roof is the same or comparable to a new asphalt shingle roof. At that point it's game over. Why would anyone install a roof that doesn’t produce “free” electricity for the same price as a conventional roof. Installing a conventional roof and then adding solar panels would look worse and cost more. Added benefits include the solar roof having a lifetime warranty against damage. The solar roof is far more resilient against wind, hail, and fire. No small thing in our era of climate change. I could even see insurance companies offering discounts on home insurance.
You’ve also said that renewables plus batteries aren’t a utility level solution. However, in places like Hawaii, California, and Australia (Hornsdale), we are seeing massive utility scale battery installations, where Tesla Mega Packs are coupled with wind/solar farms to replace NG gas peaker plants. I understand base load is different than peakers, but I wouldn’t bet against Elon/Tesla solving that as well. Transmission is solvable, it really just requires political will and capital, there’s no new technology needed. Placing wind and solar farms adjacent to existing/former power plants and placing Mega Packs at the former power plant locations is another potential solution to transmission. I also understand that sometimes the sun doesn’t shine and wind doesn’t blow. This can be solved by overbuilding wind and solar capacity. If we 2X capacity (shooting from hip) then we’d only need the sun to shine and wind to blow half the time and utility battery storage and Tesla software to smooth out the supply vs demand equation.
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.
-
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.
I appreciate the discussion as well. I would be thrilled if your confidence in Elon and team comes to fruition. The electrical grid is the largest and most complex thing we've built as a species. I'm sticking to my guns here, but not because I don't want it to happen. Someone just has to keep things in check. Otherwise we end up with Indegogo's for solar roadways ;)
-
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.
-
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.
maybe, stop selling it?
-
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.
-
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.
I agree (I own Bitcoin as well- funnily enough known as my "Tesla fund"). From an investment perspective, like you said, it's the opposite of diversification- I already own the amount of Bitcoin that I want in my portfolio. I don't want to have to account for Tesla's share of bitcoin when re-balancing (this is a bit tongue-in cheek because I don't own any Tesla other than VTSAX). It's like saying: "Hey you should hire this HVAC contractor. He's really good at installing the new heat pump units. Also, he has a lot of gold buried in his yard"
-
Years and years ahead of competition
This is the part that I have been pushing back a bit on. To me it's not a very reliable metric. Plenty of companies were years ahead of the competition, but the competition didn't take years to catch up... the market dynamics change after the mainstream adopts. Technology gets shared, systems get updated. Volvo was years ahead of the competition on safety, and while they're still up there, they certainly don't have the market lead like they used to.
-
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.
-
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.
was this intended for the tesla thread?
-
Since trading Bitcoin came up, I thought it was relevant. I do not actively trade $TSLA
-
ah - got it.
the thread What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation was next to this one so I wasn't sure if maybe that was the intended target.
-
Pre-paying toward a Tesla by building savings in Bitcoin seemed like a reasonable strategy to me.
-
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
90 minutes long? Is there a clifts note version?
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.
-
Comparing Tesla to other automakers is like comparing Amazon to Barns and Noble back in 2005 when they launched Amazon Prime and had started selling things other than books and AWS was in its infancy.
Tesla:
Cars, SUVs, Energy Storage, Charging infrastructure, Energy generation(solar), Self-driving, AI humanoid robot development, light duty trucks, local travel semis, robo-taxi most of these segments are in their infancy or yet to be launched.
Any other non-startup vehicle manufacturer:
Cars, Trucks, SUVs...some might be working on self-driving, but none are working on charging infrastructure or energy generation or energy storage or AI or local travel semi's AFAIK.
Apples and oranges. Long investors are not worried about Tesla becoming the highest volume production car manufacturer out there. They have already proven that they can make significantly more profit per vehicle than traditional auto suppliers. They don't need to be the highest volume auto manufacturer, but they do need to be top 5 in all of their segments(once they become commercially viable) to continue the growth expectation of each of these segments and make the crazy valuation catch up and continue their growth path.
Rockefeller made his money from oil sold to consumers for home lighting. When electricity came along and threatened his business model, he ended up using the waste from the lighting oil refining process to make gasoline for the internal combustion engine. Musk has learned to branch out to adjacent industry segments a bit faster...
-
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
I watched this and thought I should post it here... looks like you beat me to it!
I agree that this is good information. As far as length, the fact of the matter is that there is a lot of nuance to the Tesla story. Nuance takes time to convey.
As a side rant:
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.
Digital ad spend in USA in 2020=$137 billion
Population of USA = 330 million
Ad spend per capita = $455
They wouldn't be spending that money if there wasn't a return on it.
Please use protection.
Ad Block for Youtube
(https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock-for-youtube/cmedhionkhpnakcndndgjdbohmhepckk)
-
welp tsla sure took a dive today!
I'm up less than 60% now!
-
Monster beat with Q4 deliveries representing ~$3 billion more in revenue higher than analysts expected. 934k deliveries for 2021. Q4 will be a massive + to cash flow.
I took delivery of a Model Y a couple of weeks ago. Great product. Things still look good going forward to me for the company.
-
Beta 10.8 is pretty darn good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNX89uqly6U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNX89uqly6U)
It's starting to work on 100% snow covered streets (My experience, not this video).
There was an interesting quote on a recent podcast with Elon Musk/Lex Fridman that if the current trend of Tesla's self driving safety continues on it's current rate of improvement, it will match that of the average human by the end of this year.
I know the idea of self driving cars sounds crazy... But so did supersonic flight in 1946. Allow your imagination to run wild with the possibilities of electric autonomous RV's for 15 minutes. Fall asleep in Cincinnati on Friday night, have Saturday brunch in Tallahassee, go diving at Ginnie springs after lunch. Spend the night there, dive all day Sunday. Be back to work tanned and rested on Monday morning.
I'm just as frugal as the rest of you, but man... I can see spending $1000 a month to have that capability... Think what the spendy pants among us would be willing to part with...
-
the future is coming up fast upon us! And Tesla may well lead the way on a lot of it.
-
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.
-
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.
Gifted each of my kids a Tesla share for Christmas 2020. They can’t cash it in until their 16th birthday (at earliest). Good lesson in market volatility and learning to ignore short term swings, up or down. They’ve stopped asking if they can sell, so I think its sinking in or they just capitulated.
-
Tesla's self driving software is improving rapidly. It drove me ~120 miles the other day without any disengagements (Airport to home). Here is a recent video of it working in downtown Chicago:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weGPquybDlU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weGPquybDlU). Tesla's approach to autonomy is going to work. The only question is how long it will take. When it does work, a huge amount of value will be unlocked.
-
Stock price approaching ATH with another stock-split on the horizon. Second half of 2022 and 20223 will be huge as Austin and Berlin ramp alongside 4680 cell production, CyberTruck production starts in 2023, and energy storage continues to slowly ramp. Margins will continue to improve, hard to believe since they're already 2x - 3x industry averages. In the grand scheme, Tesla is just getting started.
-
@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.
Five 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.
Thought it would be fun to revisit some old posts from this thread. For this bet, Tesla SP finished the year above 300 and Tesla delivered 145,000+ Models 3s in 2018.
-
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.
This one didn’t age well. Stock up 17X since this post.
-
Is the proof in the pudding yet?
Seems like a lot of predictions did not pan out, did any of the naysayers actually short the stock? Some were super confident it was going to bk.
-
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.
-
I saw the news about Musk buying into Twitter, and decided to plunge in myself!
-
If these stats don't provide proof in the pudding, not sure what can. Growing this fast with a 6-12 month backlog to get a car and no marketing/pr department.
The EV revolution is happening right under everyone's noses...the delivery(sales) numbers below are from 2 factories. As of March/April, they have 2 additional factories capable of more than doubling output. The made $4.5B profit in Q421 alone.
Ad spending per vehicle sold:
Lincoln: $1,553
Jaguar: $1,235
Lexus: $984
Cadillac: $908
Honda: $183
Mini: $91
Dodge: $78
Mitsubishi: $43
Tesla: $0
Source: Ad Age (2020 spending)
US Auto Q1 2022 unit sales vs Q1 2021:
Toyota - 510,348 - down 15%
GM - 485,330 - down 24%
Ford - 431,123 - down 17%
Stellantis - 411,174 - down 13%
Honda- 252,205 - down 27%
Tesla (US)-111,595 - up 57%
Tesla (global) - 310,048 - up 68%
Source: Company Reports (Q1 21 vs 22)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPIkbvKVcAIvVWu?format=jpg&name=medium)
-
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.
-
Still riding the TSLA wave with my total stock market index fund
-
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.
Why is that inconsistent? What's the inconsistency in investing in a company executing very well on its business while not investing in companies that are not shipping any significant amount of products? Tesla was still selling 100,000 vehicles in 2017 with a roadmap for growth and production increases. Have any of those companies done anymore than 100 total? I've been reading Tesla financials for years. You may not believe Tesla will continue to grow, but it's not hard to read a Nikola 10Q and figure out it's trash.
-
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. 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 happening. It was not at all comparable to the other three you mentioned, even in 2017.
-
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 happening
Maybe 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.
Nikola is up +1% in the past year, a year in which fortunately a short seller targetted Nikola with criticism. That short seller got paid for being right, and Nikola had to admit they had faked their EV truck video: Nikola rolled one of their trucks down a hill. That sounds much closer to a scam to me than anything from another EV car company.
-
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.
Why would anyone group Tesla, Lordtown, and Nikola together, even back then? If you dismiss a company just based on superficial information, then there is a lesson to be learned. One big difference between these companies is their people. Not that that is the only difference.
Tesla has disclosed recently that they'll grow 50% per year in the next few years. If they deliver, then it's not too late to own the stock. And if you're really paying attention, you'll know that they can grow 50% this year with just the Fremont and Shanghai factories alone.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
What I was trying to get at above were not the details in particular, but a method of looking at the world. Be curious. When you see something you've never seen before or don't understand, look deeper. Don't only rely on the internet for information, be sure to seek out information in the real world. In general, real world information is more valuable than information that has been packaged for the masses. Try to understand where a company sits in the arc of history. Use your own reactions to a product as proxy for what the average persons reaction will be. The sooner you understand a new technology, the more valuable that knowledge is (I've built a career on it).
I hope that doesn't sound preachy, it's just a way of seeing the world that has been very valuable to me and I'd like to pass it along.
-
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.
I bought first shares in 2013 and held on for 6 long years as the stock traded sideways. I didn’t sell a single share and instead added to my position on dips. I saw the execution and investment back into the company and knew the stock price would eventually have to reconcile with reality. My investment wasn’t due to luck and neither was Tesla’s success.
-
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.
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
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 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.
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.
-
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.
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 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.
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.
In regards to the first bit about the incumbents advantage, Tesla used time as a lever. Of the good, fast & cheap triangle (Google it), Tesla picked good and cheap over a long time horizion. Because western competitors drug their feet on the transition, they are left with picking between good & fast incurring large expenses (VW) or cheap & fast and delivering a shitty end product (GM).
As far as Tesla coming into competition with Chinese manufacturers, this will happen. However, it will only happen after the weak competitors have been killed off and their market share eaten. Think GM. Think Stellantis.
-
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.
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 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.
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.
All the things you listed are anchors weighing auto legacy down, not things Tesla has paid to overcome. Gas is more expensive than electricity (who needs gas stations, Tesla owners fuel at home), dealerships are unnecessary middle-men, a pain to deal with and add to the cost of the car, but add little of value. They survive primarily by servicing and repairing combustion engines. EVs don’t require routine maintenance and rarely need repair. Good luck to legacy auto trying to convince their dealers to kill their own business model by selling EVs. As for reaching their current scale, there was nothing easy about the ramp to mass production for Tesla, as other EV start-ups are quickly finding out. Heck, GM produced less than 50 EVs in all of Q1 and they been “electrifying" for a years now!
Tesla could sell a Model 3 profitably today for $35k. They could build a line and sell an economy sedan for $25k and a 200 mile range today. But why? Tesla margins are insane, 3X that of legacy auto. Tesla has been increasing their prices even as their cost to produce has been coming down because there’s a 6-12 month wait for most of their models. Why decrease price when you are production and battery cell constrained? They’ll continue to plug billions in profits to further expansion and a pipeline of new products. The plan has always been to start in the high-end of the market and work their way down, which they will do when they have the production capacity to service that market segment. Lastly, the Chinese manufacturers are not competing with Tesla, they’ll end up replacing the legacy auto ICE market share as legacy spend billions they can’t afford to try and pivot while maintaining their most profitable ICE lines. Respectfully, I don’t think you have a good grasp of what’s happening here.
-
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 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.
Edmunds.com has a calculator that can solve for these things. Let's compare the 5 year cost of ownership for used cars from the 2020 model year:
Model 3 standard range, no AWD: $49,052
https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-3/2020/cost-to-own/?style=401839826
Honda Accord LX: $37,090
https://www.edmunds.com/honda/accord/2020/cost-to-own/?style=401827085
Prius Prime: $35,161
https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/prius-prime/2020/cost-to-own/?style=401802251
Corolla LE: $31,666
https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/corolla/2020/cost-to-own/?style=401788243
As you can see, the Tesla is a luxury car in terms of the cost of ownership. Even a used Tesla like a 2020 model is a bad financial decision. Admittedly, it's not the same financial suicide as a BMW 3 series, but it's closer to that type of car than an Accord.
Your results may vary because zip code is one of the parameters.
-
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 don't think it's reasonable to take the lowest option base model of a lineup as a representation of how luxury a brand is. Also, averages are not great for comparison because the high prices of, say, a $200,000 Porsche can skew the numbers (statistics 101 here). Median price would be closer, although doesn't appear to be any data on that. A look at other luxury car brands when viewed through this lens:
Base BMW X1: $35,000
Base Land Rover Discovery Sport: $43,300
Base Lexus IS: $39,850
Base Audi Q3: $36,400
Base Cadillac XT4: $36,990
-
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.
-
was looking at the tesla site - did not realize that the FSD was a 12k add on to car cost.
so, I thought that was interesting!
-
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.
You know, I'd love to be 37 with an "investing screwup" which netted me $4M. That's more than double what I would need for the family to FIRE.
-
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.
-
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...
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.
-
They're selling every dang car they can make and have a backlog of orders approaching a year.
Presuming a similar margin, should they focus on producing $60k+ cars or $30k cars? Remember that throughput is essentially equal - every $30k car produced means one less $60k+ car produced.
-
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...
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.
Pretty much every EV manufacturer is production constrained, most due to battery capacity. GM delivered less than 50 EVs in Q4. I think Tesla is doing just fine relative to the “competition". It was never Tesla's goal or mission to claim 100% market share. Their goal was to drive the transition to electric transportation. They’re succeeding. I’ve no doubt there will buyers for Tesla vehicles when they roll out new, lower-priced offerings. The Tesla brand is synonymous with EVs and they have yet to spend a dime on marketing. Tesla will sell every car they make as the rapidly ramp production for years to come. GM, Ford and Chrysler will be lucky to still be in business in 5 years without another round of government bailouts.
-
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60c24f91684d920cb6097d4e/t/625affb36a000b41381f8455/1650130893591/The+Tesla+Decade+-+Worm+Capital+-+4-18-2022.pdf
One of the best summations of the Bull case for Tesla that I’ve come across.
-
from the link above:
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.
10X return in just 8 years.....seems....incredible!
-
from the link above:
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.
10X return in just 8 years.....seems....incredible!
8 years ago Tesla was about $45. Today it's about $1000, which is better than 20x in 8 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.
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.
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
It would probably also increase the calls for a wealth tax as Musk would throw his weight around more and further disregard the SEC and other governments.
-
I mean, all of those companies on the list (setting aside Aramco which isn't comparable) regularly draw fire from both sides of the political aisle for having too much size/influence. Some of them have already had significant antitrust actions taken against them (ie EU vs Alphabet). It's very hard for me to imagine a company 4 or 5 times the size of those giants not being immediately taken apart by antitrust authorities.
Tesla at $10 trillion would also be valued at ~50% of the entire US GDP, if we're throwing around crazy numbers.
-W
-
What does any potential breakup have anything to do with achieving a higher valuation and therefore a higher return? A company broken up into 5 smaller ones would result in you owning all 5 companies. See the Ma Bell breakup for an example. This is not to say I think Tesla will be 10X, nor am I saying it will be broken up.
-
I don't sense any apetite among Republicans to break up Tesla if it gets too big, especially not anymore.
-
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
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 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.
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
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 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?
-
I have 28 years, seven months left on a mortgage at 2.75%, so I think I'm prepared for inflation.
-
well...maybe I went a little cray cray....
I bought 50 more tesla shares today in Roth, so I am at 150 shares. All in Roth.....
so I think that is enough for me, and if it does do half so well as some think I will be in great shape, and if it does not beat the market at all, I'll be ok, and if it tanks, it isn't enough to completely derail me.
oh wow - just saw that their earning call is tonight, lol! I guess well see which way is what.....
-
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
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 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.
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
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 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.
So maybe your original statement was not meant to be as dire as it sounded! If prices come down and quality goes up....that is a win for everryone.
One thing that really worries me quite a bit as we automate and AI the world is how those on the bottom are going to fare when there is not entry level jobs, when manual labor of all kinds mostly fades away. As a society, we haven't done a great job of making sure that tech advances benefit everyone and when jobs become few and far between, wondering how that might be handled.
That is one thing that keeps me slogging away. Make money while I still can!
-
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
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 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?
-
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
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 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?
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.
Toyota USA is a US public company primarily engaged in wholesale distribution of vehicles throughout the US.
With that said, if Toyota had been growing 50% per year from 1994-2004 the US share price would likely have grown at a different rate. Instead, they grew 90% combined over the first 10 years of sharing TPS in the US.
1994 1.071M vehicles sold in US
1995 1.078M
1996 1.109M
1997 1.190M
1998 1.317M
1999 1.465M
2000 1.629M
2001 844k(changed fiscal year only 6 mo reported on the 10K I found)
2002 1.673M
2003 1.800M
2004 1.900M
-
Thanks for tracking these numbers down!
-
shoot! when I saw it was down to 970's I wanted to pick up some more at the end of the day but was on a work call and missed the timing. My purchase price this morning was 1005, so far at after hours trading the price is 1044.
Will be interesting to see how if fares tomorrow. Previous earning call I think it shot up and then was back to baseline by end of next trading day....
-
It's still the company it was. I'm pondering the tail-risk of Elon borrowing against his shares to finance a Twitter acquisition.
-
30% gross margin before credits. That’s bananas.
-
I will continue to say yes it's a good investment. Overvalued YES but go look at about 75% of the companies out there and many have a lot less potential I wish I would have bought a ton of TSLA
-
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.
-
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.
In 2021, TSLA wasn't much over 1% of global light vehicle production (by units) - but had a disproportionate amount of profit and growth. They are well positioned to take a large chunk of the heavy vehicle (Semi) market, and are already taking a large chunk of the stationary storage market. Their pace of innovation in driving down costs (Examples: structural battery pack, 4680 cells, megacasting) is significant.
We're a long way from fulfilling a monopolistic growth story.
-
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.
I agree that Tesla has a long way to go in terms of market share and that they can and will get there.
I think ChpBstrd's point is that that status is already priced in at $1k/share. Tesla will have competition, and good competition, it's just a matter of time.
-W
-
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.
-
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.
This is the thing to be keeping your eye on. Electrification is great, but AI is the real elephant in the room. On Tesla's recent earning call they announced that they intend to begin mass production of robotaxis in 2024. Maybe their timeline is off a bit, however it is going to happen. My Model 3 drove me across Anchorage on it's own again today. FSD Beta just keeps getting better with every update. It does some maneuvers better than me now.
Watch "Two Minute Papers" on YouTube for a glance at where AI is now and where it is headed. Take note of the rapid rate of improvement.
-
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.
Ford producing more EVs than Tesla in a few years? They've announced the goal of 2 million EVs in 2026. Tesla is going to produce 1.5 million this year and ramping 2 new factories. They'll exceed 2 million in 2023. The idea of what happens when EVs are everywhere is an interesting one, but we're at the bottom left of that S-curve still. I don't know what happens or what technology will be dominant. In the 2020s, Tesla has the manufacturing capacity to satisfy demand that others don't and an operating margin that equals Toyota's gross margin.
As for EPS, $15/share annually is the new standard for Tesla after this quarter. They're compressing EPS faster than critics can keep up with it. EPS of the past 4 quarters is 111X. 67X next 4 quarters and 40x in 2023. For a company growing faster than 50% annually with leading margins, those are cheap numbers.
-
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"
-
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. And they're only useful for short haul stuff, which is a fraction of the overall market. Fleet buyers jobs depend on two things: Total Cost of Ownership and Uptime. If trucks aren't rolling down the road, they're not making their owner money. If it takes longer to get replacement parts for a Tesla EV semi than it does a Freightliner EV semi, then that changes the math and jobs are on the line. And it's not always stuff like powertrains that sideline trucks. If something like a deer strike or accident damages a headlight, the truck has to stay parked until the light is functional again. Right now, the legacy companies have parts sitting on shelves across the US. Tesla will need similar production capability of everything, not just batteries.
Having a bunch of battery suppliers might benefit Tesla's manufacturing, but it might be detrimental to customers if they can't get their battery serviced, repaired or replaced easily because the cells from that manufacturer aren't on hand. Or if battery performance, weight, longevity or charging time varies between cell makers.
The Semi has to be the right price up front, including infrastructure upgrades like MegaChargers. It has to have lower maintenance. It has to be down as little time as possible when things do break. It has to last as long as the legacy trucks do. And at that point, it's still just good for short haul stuff.
-
Again, PE is a bad stock indicator. But just for kicks, the current PE of Tesla is now 113, not 200, after 2022 Q1:
Past 4 qtrs earnings = 1.45 + 1.86 + 2.38 + 3.22 = 8.91
PE = 1008 / 8.91 = 113
With the explosive earnings going forward, the PE will continue to shrink rapidly to under 100. However, Tesla will unlikely have a PE of <50 in the near future as people will pay up for a consistent performer, pushing TSLA higher.
btw, all high performing growth stocks has a PE like that - negative at the beginning(building phase), then positive but a high PE(just starting to earn money), then PE drops(raking in a lot of money), finally PE stays low(the business is mature).
Regarding other OEMs producing EVs in volume to compete with Tesla, I've been hearing that since 2015. So far no one other than Tesla has volume production. Where are they going to get enough batteries? How are they going to make money when they are cannibalizing their ICE sales? For people who love GM and F's low PEs and think that they will crush Tesla, I urge them to invest in F and GM. If F and GM can crush Tesla in the next 5 years, they sure will be worth a lot more than their current market caps.
-
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.
Yep, Pepsi and Walmart just to name a couple big guys.
The people at Tesla are not stupid. I'm pretty sure they've analyzed the market fit before they decide to produce the semi.
-
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.
I can't find a single story about a Tesla Semi in customer hands. Pepsi has some on order, but the delivery date keeps getting pushed back as far as I can tell. First they were to be delivered in Q4 of '21. Then by the end of Jan '22. But nothing since then has been released, and you can bet that they'd put out some press if they'd actually delivered some by now. Feel free to link some stories about Tesla Semis in customer hands if I'm mistaken. I'd genuinely be interested, but I can find nothing about them entering actual scale production, or being in customer hands.The most recent story that I can find is just a picture of 4 plain prototype trucks next to each other at a Tesla facility:
https://electrek.co/2022/01/26/tesla-semi-fleet-electric-trucks-unveiled/
It's extremely commonplace for large fleets to put in small orders for every new truck or powertrain combo that comes out so they can trial them in their specific duty cycle. Literally every year, the Walmarts and Schneiders of the world are ordering new experimental vehicles with prototype powertrains. That doesn't mean they're switching wholesale, or even that more orders are destined to come from that fleet again. Nikola had a bunch of orders for their truck too, and it never even existed. There's a very high likelihood that the fleets ordering Tesla Semis to test are also ordering EV semis from other makers too for head to head comparison:
https://electrek.co/2022/01/14/kenworth-says-electric-truck-orders-have-tripled-the-past-three-months-quoting-customers-in-44-states/
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/10/08/volvo-trucks-receives-order-for-100-electric-semis/
https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/money/2021/10/25/battery-electric-trucks-schneider-among-first-deploy-large-fleet-electric-semitrucks/5769441001/
I'm not saying they won't sell any Tesla Semis. There's obviously interest in the Tesla Semi, just as there's interest in all of the EV trucks. They might get a slice of the pie, but it remains to be seen how significant that slice will actually be. I'm obviously skeptical because Tesla has more headwinds in that market than they did in personal EVs. They've got more competition right out of the gate, and they'll have much more demanding service requirements than they did with rich early adopters that could tolerate hiccups.
-
People love to claim Tesla isn't going to manage to make X product, so then when they do the claim gets modified to they won't be able to make as many as they say, then whey they do the claim gets modified to they won't make money at it, then they do so it's ... etc etc etc.
The model S was announced in 2008. They didn't even sell the first one until 2012. They took for-freakin'-ever to make enough to be a blip on the radar, then all of a sudden they're everywhere. I have no doubt the same will be true for the semi. I am long past betting against Tesla. They deliver, just not on the optimistic timelines they like to claim.
@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.
-
It all depends on the prices for Lithium and Nickel. Have they peaked?
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium (https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium)
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/nickel (https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/nickel)
Exponential growth in EV's, especially heavy EV's like the Hummer and Semis, would have to be matched by exponential growth in mines and recycling technologies. I'm just not sure the less glamorous worlds of mining and materials recycling change that quickly. 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.
I'm the last one to say "see a trend, it will go on forever" but if materials supplies don't keep up with EV manufacturers' growth plans, then those growth plans simply cannot happen.
-
1) Tesla is not going to be paying spot price for the vast majority (if not all) of their raw materials. They set up long term contracts.
2) I suggest you watch Battery Day from ~1.5 years ago and pay attention to how Tesla is developing a technique to extract lithium from clay.
-
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.
How about Richard Trevithick, inventor of the first successful locomotive?
I do appreciate SpaceX and especially Starlink but I don't really have anything good to say about Musk in general or Tesla in specific.
EDITed to add: are we discussing Tesla or Musk? I'd invest in Starlink, not Tesla.
-
@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.
So 500 miles of range (assuming Tesla isn't optimistic about the range claim and there's perfect charger placement exactly at the end of the semi's range) is about 25% less daily miles driven than a similar ICE truck. That's a massive difference in efficiency in a business where 1% fuel economy gains are a pretty big deal. Then the truck has to charge on a very specific Mega Charger for unknown hours at an unknown cost? 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?
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/amv-prod-cad-assets/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Tesla-Semi-112-1.jpg)
(https://www.teslarati.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/tesla-semi-cab-interior.jpg)
The body looks larger than it is. The back couple of feet are just aero fairings:
(https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/06/IMG_0943-e1561442200412.jpg?quality=82&strip=all)
They can probably add a sleeper without too much radical engineering, but that only adds weight to an already heavy cab, which reduces the freight efficiency. This isn't insurmountable stuff on a long enough timeline, but all of these things represent hurdles for the Tesla Semi to gain wide adoption, or to become viable as long haul trucks. It's not just about battery tech, or charging networks. There are legitimate issues with batteries for duty cycles involving heavy work for long periods of time. All of the legacy truck makers have been working on battery trucks for the same amount of time as Tesla. But they're also hedging bets with other technologies as well like Hydrogen fuel cells, hydrogen combustion in ICEs, alternative fuels, etc because they are likely to be better for certain applications than batteries. Or at least represent an easier intermediate step. We've lived in a world with multiple fuels for different tasks for the last 100 years or so, and I don't think that general theme is likely to change. The future of work isn't going to have a single solution for fuel/propulsion. What works for short haul in CA may fail miserably for long haul in cold climates and vice versa. What works for city buses might not work for dump trucks. "Add more batteries" isn't always the answer, especially as we're struggling to make enough batteries for the few BEVs we already have. Is it better to allocate 700-1000kwh of battery capacity resources to a single semi, or divide it among 2-3 electric city buses, or 7-10 personal BEVs, or 50 PHEVs, or 500 regular hybrids?
And to be clear, a lot of these issues are present in all of the BEV semi trucks, not just the Tesla. But Tesla specifically has some obstacles to overcome that the other truck makers really don't (like supporting infrastructure, relationships and in depth knowledge of their customers' needs, etc). Stuff like that doesn't get talked about or thought about very much outside of the commercial sector, but it absolutely matters to the people writing checks for new semis.
Again, there's interest in the Tesla offering just like all of the others. I'm just skeptical that their slice of the pie is going to be very large on a national scale. Especially outside of short haul work.
-
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.
-
If Musk isn't selling and causing today's downward slide, his number of shares on margin just got a lot larger.
-
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!
-
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).
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.
-
Having those motives doesn't rule out other possibilities, such as:
- Execute on a classist world view in which those with sufficient wealth or influence can ignore the rule of law
- Approach Government and the legal system through an "extraction" strategy in which subsidies are freely and blatantly accepted, while regulators are defanged.
-
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).
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.
why quote me and say this? I do not care for musk at all.
The post I quoted is just bananas, which is why I responded with bananas.
-
I suppose trying to infer Musk's motives, we have only to look at his record of achievements, and his public statements.
-
I think it's hard to reconcile his words and achievements.
-
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.
-
I agree. But I'm not sure those earlier titans didn't deserve the censure they eluded.
I really love what tesla stands for. changing the game on electric vehicles, the telsa roof, etc. At least what I thought it stood for. But musk is making that difficult, and there is a younger generation of future telsa owners that he is alienating.
I was so excited to plan my tesla car purchase. now, I'm not sure I want that musk baggage in my driveway.
-
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.
-
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.
please see my previous comment....
how much it may impact things, idk! No company is a single person, but he doesn't make it easy to remember that!
-
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.
Yep. Few people know how awful Henry Ford was:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/henryford-antisemitism/
https://www.history.com/news/henry-ford-antisemitism-worker-treatment
Carnegie sponsored Eugenics:
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796
Edison was generally awful:
https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/thomas-edison-the-first-tech-jerk-d1b869f833dc
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/04/26/thomas-edison-the-electric-chair-and-a-botched-execution-a-death-penalty-primer/
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
There are a couple more potential issues with this.
1) Someone can be technically very good at one thing, but that may or may not translate well to other fields of knowledge, even adjacent ones. Elon could be very good at making/selling electric cars, for instance, but very bad at infrastructure design. But because he's good in the EV field he is assumed, by himself and others, to have this infrastructure knowledge. And that can cause quite a bit of tension where there should be collaboration.
2) I actually can't tell how deep his knowledge goes in many of these fields. He obviously knows his stuff, but does he know much more than the average person working 13 hours a day (or whatever he claims) on said projects? After a few years in any given field, I can sound pretty competent to a fellow amateur or layperson.
For him, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and it cannot be denied that he has an effective combination of vision, technical knowledge, salesmanship, and (I would say) apathy to make successful businesses the way he has. But I don't trust him for a minute, and I don't think he really spends much time thinking along future timelines that would be inconvenient to him.
-
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"
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/28/elon-musk-business-savant-with-limited-empathy-says-brother-kimbal.html
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
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.
It seems Mr Musk is pointing to Twitter claiming 5% bots on Twitter for years. What he doesn't say is that he believes this is material false information. If the company claims 95% of users are real, but only 80% are real, that could be a material difference that allows Musk to exit the deal.
Apparently the banning of a conservative satire account from Twitter got Mr Musk interested in buying the company (according to a poster elsewhere on the forum). My theory has also come true, as Elon Musk said he will unban former President Trump from Twitter and allow him to return.
Watching how Mr Musk dealt with events over the past few years tells me he's politically a libertarian. He complained about California's Covid-19 rules, threatening to ignore them. He is moving (or has moved) his company headquarters from California to Texas. If someone wanted to allow Donald Trump back on Twitter, which party would you guess they were in?
I suspect Tesla will get a new customer base out of this. I recently tried to check my assumptions by watching some Fox News shows. There, Elon Musk is hailed as fighting for the right to free speech. Considering the top 10 TV shows are all Fox News programs, that's a lot of good advertising. I suspect Tesla's EV sales will pick up in rural areas over the next several years.
-
Watching how Mr Musk dealt with events over the past few years tells me he's politically a libertarian.
He's definitely a libertarian. If he does buy Twitter, he may have an "Alan Greenspan" moment.
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.
-
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.
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 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.
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 than it would be for rural people to ditch their traditionally-styled trucks and get EVs. What rural people have been lusting over for the past two decades is not a cybertruck; it's a crew cab 4X4 diesel with "custom" exhaust that makes people turn and look when it rattles by.
I doubt Musk's personal politics will change generations-old rural culture. These folks are NOT looking for the next new thing, and they're the demographic most sensitive to range anxiety.
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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 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 think that he said that the voters are divisive and hateful, but I could be wrong.
EDITed to add: there are only ~49 million registered democrats in America. https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_affiliations_of_registered_voters That's way less than half the country, even if you count every last one of them as divisive and hateful.
-
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 don't have an NYT subscription to view that article.
The question isn't what percent of Republicans are Libertarians. Given someone is Libertarian, which party should they join?
I suspect because Elon Musk is so openly opinionated on Twitter, and generally controversial, that declaring his politcal party will have a less lasting impact than expected. So right now it seems significant, but I don't think it will still be considered significant a year from now.
-
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 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.
-
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.
In the 2020 election, 51.3% of all voters voted for Biden (democrat) compared to 46.9% for Trump. So that's where I got the "half" number but you are correct there are many independents who voted for Biden as well. But regardless, insulting 31% of the voters who are registered democrat, who are part of the democratic party, is a bad move for a CEO of a big company. Warren Buffet warned about such tribalism in his last meeting in Omaha a couple weeks back. Warren keeps politics out of business, and he's smart for doing so. I think Elon's statements will hurt the company. And now he's been recently booted out of the S&P 500 ESG. He's unstable and mean. I don't like him anymore. I used to like the guy.
(Btw, my BF is independent, but he always votes democrat and he found it very offensive what Elon said.)
-
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 don't see a lot of conservative anger against drugs anymore. "Socially" Libertarians have the single strong issue in both parties - pro-abortion for Democrats, pro-guns for Republicans.
-
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)
So, has the dirty tricks campaign started?
Methinks he knew what was coming when he posted that tweet.
Of course, sexual harassment isn't an issue for republican voters.
-
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.
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.
Perhaps Musk's right wing pivot is the psychological effect of being a billionaire with tens of millions of worshipful fanboys, Twitter followers, and the media constantly talking about him, essentially training him to become a narcissist in the mold of Trump. The experience no doubt changes a person. Musk's stated goals have shifted from getting rich (PayPal era) to saving humanity (Tesla and SpaceX era) to making Twitter un-moderated like 4-chan, 8-chan, Parlor, Telegram, and a dozen other companies, ostensibly to save freedom of speech. These changes reflect Musk's changing arc of meaning, going from selfishness to heroism and then finally to the combination of those features - narcissism. Musk is also the uber-generation-Xer in the sense that he distrusts and wants to dismantle existing institutions like banking, currencies, various industries, social media platforms, and eventually governments.
This urge to innovatively disrupt institutions now clashes with the vision of the Democratic party, which seeks to preserve certain old institutions such as unions, anti-monopoly regulation, and the United States' traditional form of government. Democrats applauded Musk when he was disrupting Wall Street banks and the fossil fuel industry, but now his disruption is encroaching on things they hold dear. Even more terrifying to them is Musk's proven talent, not at building better things per se, which would limit his effect to the change he alone could accomplish, but in convincing other people to buy into memes of innovative disruption. What happens when such a person buys themselves a platform like Twitter?
-
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.
As for Musk, he's never really fit the mold of a traditional Democrat, even though plenty of his most ardent supporters seemed to think that because he wants to sell lots of EVs, he was just like them. It's peak tribalism, where people blindly assume that because a person shares one of their views (in this case Pro EV), they share all of them. The reality is that musk was born a pretty wealthy white man. He's anti-union, anti-regulation, and anti-government (unless they're going to subsidize his business). He's relentlessly demanding of his employees, his business has shown little motivation to prioritize employee or customer safety, and he moves to wherever the tax situation benefits him the most. He was briefly even part of two of Trump's advisory councils until Trump backed the US out of the Paris Climate Accord (hurting Musk's business prospects). For all of these reasons, the current leaders of the Democratic party have avoided talking about Tesla at all until recently, instead choosing to promote the other American EV makers that have a bunch of union workers.
-
A lot of people are born into wealthy families without becoming the richest man in the world.
For decades before Tesla, every single electric car company failed. For Elon Musk to try with Tesla was a fool's errand - and the first success for electric car companies. He wasn't a co-founder of Tesla, but he was Tesla's first CEO. But to even have a successful company was very long odds - to reach the top of the S&P 500 and threaten all conventional car makers is well beyond just luck.
As to Twitter, someone corrected me in another thread over his motivation. Christian satire website Babylon Bee was banned from Twitter over a piece of satire, and apparently Elon Musk even asked Twitter about this specific ban. 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.
-
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.
-
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.
I just wanted to make sure people here in this thread are aware of what Elon is doing before investing. I understand you disagree, but I do think his behavior is damaging to the company. Warren Buffet says politics should be left out of the business.. I agree with him.
I do think Biden should of mentioned Tesla when mentioning EV tech, instead of just Ford and GM.. this probably triggered Elon's recent anti-democrat behavior a bit perhaps; Tesla is clearly the leader in EV and one of the most valuable companies in the USA by market cap -- although the market cap is almost half of what it was a few months ago.
Personally I think the current market cap of $685B is too high still if you ask me. The P/E ratio is a whopping 89 yet they only produced what 100k cars last year? There's going to be a lot of competition in the coming years as Ford, GM etc. catches up.
EDIT: Dang TSLA dropped down to -10.58% today, so far. It's at -9.5% now.
-
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.
He is a businessman first and foremost. His original motivation was almost certainly neither philosophical or philanthropic.
He is also far from being the first or most poignant in criticism of twitter, nor clear in how he would "fix" it. It only takes a bit of understanding that it's not just bots that are the issue, it the entire framework of the attention economy, the algorithms that by their nature encourage outrage. There is no way to fix this without killing the addictiveness (and therefore value) of the service. It's a fools errand. This is something that needs to be regulated from the outside, with people who are not shareholders making decisions.
-
"A SpaceX flight attendant said Elon Musk exposed himself and propositioned her for sex, documents show. The company paid $250,000 for her silence.
A flight attendant for SpaceX said Elon Musk asked her to "do more" during a massage, documents show.
The billionaire founder exposed his penis to her and offered to buy her a horse, according to claims in a declaration.
After she reported the incident to SpaceX, Musk's company paid her $250,000 as part of a severance agreement."
https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-paid-250000-to-a-flight-attendant-who-accused-elon-musk-of-sexual-misconduct-2022-5
He says he is buying twitter because he is as 'free speech absolutist'. He is hiding behind NDA after sexually harassing his employees.
-
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 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.
-
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....
Which is ironic because his "will I/won't I" caused both companies to tank in stock price this month.
-
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'm not personally sure what percentage of the current drop might be from potential backlash/reduced demand vs Musk seemingly being distracted from the core business and acting in a generally unstable manner in a time where there's more and more viable competition. Markets hate instability and increasing competition. TSLA was punished similarly when Musk started going heavy into crypto too, and I don't think too many people were basing purchase decisions off of that, so I contend that the recent drop has more to do with Elon's distractions and instability than misconceptions about his politics.
-
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.
If you assume that people assumed musk was far left based on being CEO of tesla, and if you further assume that the appetite to buy an all electric does not differentiate across the political spectrum, sure.
-
He knew the flight attendant story was going to hit the news cycle, so he dropped the "I'm switching political parties" BS as a cover story. The Democrats didn't time travel back 4 years and make him wag his junk at someone. He just figured he could get ahead of the public release of that info and try to salvage his reputation.
As a claimed free speech absolutist, he should be happy that there's more speech out there about it.
-
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).
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.
-
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).
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.
-
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).
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.
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.
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. People voting third party are sending a stronger signal than the people voting D or R. You know what would make the Republican party less authoritarian? Losing a significant number of votes to the Libertarians, that's what. You know what would make the Democrats prioritize climate change? Losing a significant number of votes to the Greens, that's what. The big political parties are spending hundreds, even thousands of dollars per vote, especially in swing states. So when they see anyone vote third party despite all that spending, it sends a signal. I would argue that 100 third-party votes matter to policy more than 1,000 mainstream party votes.
The second reason third parties don't take off is because if they get any traction, the mainstream parties co-opt their policies. When the Libertarians get on the ballot, for example, the Republicans start talking more about guns or taxes and the Democrats start talking more about bodily autonomy or police reform. In that sense, the smaller parties could ideally serve as systems to steer the mainstream parties, but as noted not enough people will vote to support their own values because they might "lose". Thus, we have parties that don't represent most voters (because the voters send them false signals) and low election turnout.
Consider that when the candidate you voted for wins, you do not necessarily win anything. You might even have lost if you submitted a false representation of your own will to the political economy.
-
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.
Mmmm. That's pretty misleading. Before Tesla, Musk successfully started and then sold off Zip2 and X.com (which became PayPal) with the help of Kimbal.
As for Tesla, Eberhard and Tarpenning had incorporated about 6 months before Musk became involved - but they were basically at the "kitchen table" level - they didn't even have a written business plan. Musk paid for the entire first funding round of Tesla with his PayPal earnings and got them on the road to being an actual company. 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.
That said, Elon has never been completely stable and lately seems to have gone off the deep end drinking the GQP conspiracy kool-aid
-
I believe Rand Paul is considered Libertarian, but he's a member of the Republican party.
Rand Paul is a fully-paid-for shill for Russia.
-
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.
So how long until Musk gets kicked out for lying to investors? YouTube: all the times that Musk said self driving was right around the corner (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7oZ-AQszEI).
-
Interesting: https://slate.com/technology/2022/05/elon-musk-tesla-twitter-fables.html (https://slate.com/technology/2022/05/elon-musk-tesla-twitter-fables.html)
-
Don't breathe too deeply around here, the gaslighting is strong among us...
Set the kool-aid down and think freely people.
-
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...
Given Tesla's advances in autonomous driving, I expect they will aim for autonomous long haul trucking. In that approach, they need a way for a human driver to take over outside the city limits, and then drive the truck from there to its destination. But the long hours of cross country driving would be done by a computer chip, which could run the truck 24 hours a day.
If markets haven't figured this part out, that could be nice point in Tesla's favor. Tesla is not only working on autonomous driving, they're known for it. That can give them a big boost in a new & uncertain market like autonomous long-haul trucking.
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.
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.
Fair enough. It's no secret from this thread that I'm a skeptic; I just have heard this rhetoric for the last 5 years ("It's just around the corner!"). I am impressed with what Beta can do... and what Tesla has done for EV interest in general. I am just wary of the claims that Elon has made (It wasn't Tesla that said 10x better, it was Elon), as well as the confidence that first mover advantage indeed is a winner take all in this market. Tesla has a lot going for them, but their roadmap and valuation seem to neglect unforeseen roadblocks.
-
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.
My bet is still on Waymo.
-
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.
So after profit margin and an allowance for liability, I think this could be a $3,500 option once the market for FSD is mature, and it could cost the car companies maybe $2,000 per car.
So... "Is Tesla a good investment" if they are first to develop FSD and monopolize the market for, let's generously say 5 years? Let's ask what kind of profit margin and sales volumes they can get on these systems that cost $2k per car. I bet they could sell the FSD option for $10k per car in the first and second years, declining to $9k, $8k, $7k, and $6k in subsequent years until competitors drive the price down to $3,500. Now you can multiply those numbers by the number of cars sold, which is anybody's guess. If FSD debuts during a recession, most people will say "I'm happy to drive myself around if it saves ten grand" but in a boom time this could be a cultural phenomenon. If they sell a million FSD systems for an average profit of $5k in a year, that's $5B in profit.
-
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.
Waymo is spending more on sensor hardware than Tesla, which is one of the reasons I'm betting on Waymo solving the problem before Tesla. This works for Waymo because they have a different business model. I don't know how low they can get it but right now they have stated publicly that they got their LiDAR sensor package down to $7,500 (https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/27/22644370/waymo-lidar-stop-selling-autonomous-cars-laser-bear). That's $7,500 for one of the sensors in their multi sensor suite. That doesn't include any of the very fast chips that they need to integrate and make sense of the data.
But those chips can be optimized too* (for many millions of dollars of R&D).
* - only to a point, but anything that they can find custom ASIC designs for can get cheap fast
EDITed to add that NVIDIA is in the self driving car chip game. Have you priced a top of the line NVIDIA video card lately? https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/self-driving-cars/
-
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.
Poking around, Waymo has about 2,800 employees while Tesla had 300 employees working on self-driving cars a couple years ago.
https://rocketreach.co/waymo-profile_b4d73d2bf9af6ce8
https://chargedevs.com/newswire/tesla-has-a-huge-team-of-jedi-engineers-working-on-autopilot/
While I haven't researched Waymo in detail, the comment in this thread plus the huge gap in employee count suggests Waymo will finish first. So I stand corrected - Tesla is probably in trouble when it comes to self-driving software compared to Waymo. The competitive picture also favors Waymo's success - Tesla is the clear leader in EV cars, which means competitors need to find an advantage. Too bad we can't invest separately in Waymo (it's part of GOOG).
-
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)...
-
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.
Only if you're okay with the fact that your "Full Self Driving" Tesla won't stop or alert you for stopped vehicles even if they are fire trucks... https://www.thedrive.com/tech/tesla-nearing-recall-for-autopilot-as-feds-escalate-investigation (https://www.thedrive.com/tech/tesla-nearing-recall-for-autopilot-as-feds-escalate-investigation)
-
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)...
I would add that being first and being profitable aren't the same thing. During the .com bubble a ton of money was spent laying fiber. That fiber has been incredibly good for society but not for the investors that paid for 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)...
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.
Google Maps contains lots of valuable driving data which Waymo could use. Gmail offers semantic corrections which are usually right. Google Translate can split up languages that have no word breaks. There's a lot of interesting adjacent work that Google seems to already have as a starting point... and then you add 10x more software engineers. So my guess is Waymo reaches full self-driving before Tesla.
-
I drive a Tesla and have the "autopilot" on it - my car is a 2015 vintage. Not entirely sure the last time I used it, but my guess is around 3 years ago. The feature is - at least in the state I have it - utterly useless and it's hard to any other reason for the hype that came with it than it was Elon Musk who uttered it. New models have a quite steeply priced option for "self driving capabilities" that you can add to the order. If I were to order a new Tesla now, I think I'd rather spend the money on radioctive waste or sth similar. Luckily, what I have was standard at the time and I didnt fork out any extra money for it.
Even if Tesla did fingure this out (unlikely imo) the legislation around it is nowhere near and that wont be in place until the life expectancy of the car is over.
I do use the adaptive cruise control a bit. Even that is a bit so-so from time to time and it most def ain't cutting edge in tech as its a pretty standard feature in cars.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I did it, by the way, picked up a share of $GOOG, and would love to add more before they execute their split.
-
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/spacex-employees-call-elon-musks-behavior-a-distraction-and-embarrassment-in-letter-to-executives-report-11655413820
spacex employees calling out musk. wonder if telsa employee will join in?
-
Really counting on that labor market staying strong there, eh?
-
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/business/elon-musk-child-files-to-change-name-gender/index.html
tough to be musk today.
-
Many companies have CEOs with children across several relationships, shouldn't be a tremendous distraction for him.
-
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
-
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
It could be a problem with the journalist's choice of words.
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.
-
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.
Yup, it appears that he has managed to build "gigantic money furnaces." (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/23/musk-says-tesla-berlin-and-austin-factories-losing-billions-of-dollars.html)
-
Edward Niedermeyer who wrote Ludicrous: The Unvarnished Story of Tesla Motors was recently interviewed by The War on Cars (https://thewaroncars.org/2022/06/28/tesla-is-a-fraud-with-ed-niedermeyer/). His book came out in 2019 but we still don't have full self driving. 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.
-
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
-
Well - aside from the autonomous driving issue, how is the WH focus on subsidizing cars from unionized companies going to impact Tesla sales? Seems it could alot. However, ran across this piece, dated June 2022:
https://www.voltequity.com/post/the-clean-energy-for-america-act-and-its-potential-impact-on-tesla
"The Clean Energy Act for America would have a positive impact on Tesla by making most Tesla cars eligible for an $8,000 (House version) or $10,000 (Senate version) refundable tax credit and handicapping Chinese EVs from entering the US market. However, Tesla does not employ unionized labor, so Tesla would be ineligible for an additional $2,500 (Senate version) or $4,500 (House version) credit that companies such as Ford and GM would gain."
So where is all this going? and how will it impact sales for Tesla and other company EVs?
-
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
Shouldn't Tesla be comparing passenger cars to passenger cars? The "Total US Vehicle Fleet" includes motorcycles, for example, and 14% of traffic fatalities were from motorcyclists in 2020.
In 2019, motorcyclists were nearly 29 times more likely than passenger car occupants to die in a crash per vehicle miles traveled.
This is an old CSM article but it appears that Tesla hasn't modified its data reporting.
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
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.
-
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:
We prefer bold liars to people who make realistic promises.
-
There is a political lesson buried in these anecdotes:
We prefer bold liars to people who make realistic promises.
Hear! hear!
-
There is a political lesson buried in these anecdotes:
We prefer bold liars to people who make realistic promises.
Hear! hear!
Yes. But if you make too many false promises in front of investors you go to prison a la Elizabeth Holmes.
-
I'm sure that all of his planning is this good. Techspot: Employees return to Tesla following Elon Musk's demands, find there are not enough desks or parking spaces (https://www.techspot.com/news/95102-employees-return-tesla-following-elon-musk-demands-find.html). "The company wasn't prepared for so many people returning at once."
-
According to the NHTSA chief Steven Cliff Tesla has had 400 crashes reported(including non-police reported) on its fleet in the past 11 months against their ~830k vehicles on US roads or said another way 0.052%(annualized) of Tesla vehicles had a crash vs. 5.2M police reported crashes in 2020(per NHTSA page 5 (https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813266)-not including parking lot bumps) against ~276M vehicles registered on the road in 2020(per statista (https://www.statista.com/statistics/183505/number-of-vehicles-in-the-united-states-since-1990/)) or roughly 1.8% of vehicles on the road crashed.
Here is an excerpt of the article NHTSA Chief pledges to scrutinize driver-assist systems like Tesla Autopilot (https://www.teslarati.com/nhtsa-chief-pledges-to-scrutinize-driver-assist-tesla-autopilot/):
Vehicles with automated driver-assist systems were involved in almost 400 crashes from July 2021 to May 2022. While this may seem like a substantial number, however, it is but a small fraction of the accidents that happened on US roads last year. In 2021 alone, the NHTSA estimated that about 43,000 were killed on the road, the highest figure in 16 years.
In an interview (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-nhtsa-chief-says-agency-will-scrutinize-automated-driver-technology-01656534209?siteid=yhoof2), Cliff was quick to point out that while Tesla accounts for the lion’s share of crashes involving vehicles equipped with automated driver-assist systems, the company also has its driver-assist system on nearly all of its roughly 830,000 cars on US roads. This, together with the fact that Tesla provides near instantaneous wireless reporting of crashes, makes it quite difficult to compare the company’s results with other automakers.
The NHTSA has initiated a number of probes into Teslas since Cliff’s arrival. That being said, Cliff pointed out that Tesla has been cooperative since his arrival at the agency. The new NHTSA chief noted that Tesla is quite proactive, and the agency’s relationship with the automaker has been good.
“I think we work well with them. And when we have identified that there are risks, they’ve taken action, and that’s appropriate,” Cliff said.
-
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.
-
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.
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 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.
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 a side note, how exactly did Tesla persuade lots of people to pay them enormous margins?
-
After confirmation from today's earnings results from Ford, Tesla was as profitable in Q2 2022 as GM and Ford combined. Can't wait to see how things play out over the next few quarters.
Q2 2022 Net Income
Ford — $667 million
GM — $1.69 billion
Tesla — $2.3 billion
-
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?
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.
-
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.
Interesting that you’d stop the cost of ownership comparison at 3 years. Would love to see the source for that. I assume the numbers only improve for the Tesla the longer out you look based on reduced maintenance cost (no oil changes, transmission fluid, radiator, spark plugs, far cheaper full, etc.). Teslas are extremely economical in the long run. These cars have proven they can go easily go 300,000 miles on the original battery and drive train. They have some of the highest safety ratings of any car ever made and the highest performance.
I’ve explained to you before, but you choose to ignore that Tesla is not incapable of producing a quality EV for under $35k (roughly the US average for new vehicles), The simple fact of the matter is Tesla is battery cell constrained. They are not demand constrained. Battery cells are the limiting factor. So, why on earth would they use the limited cell supply to produce lower margin vehicles? Same for introducing new models. Why would you produce a new model (semi or Cybertruck) before you have the cell capacity to support that new line AND your existing lines. Adding new vehicles to your production incurs added costs and reduces profitability, unless you have the cell capacity to support both. You can harp on Tesla “breaking promises” by delaying these new models, but as a share holder I appreciate they are making smart business decisions to maximize profitability. Tesla is able to produce unheard of margins on their automobiles because they’ve reduced the cost to manufacture and produced a product of superior value.
You also fail to mention or to grasp the reason “a brand new Civic costs almost half as much to (purchase) as a used Tesla” is because of the tremendous resale value of used Teslas, which is actually increasing the cost to own advantage of the Tesla over ICE vehicles. Plus, comparing even the base Tesla Model 3 to a civic is like questioning why you’d pay more for a good steak over a hamburger. In this case, you pay a premium of front, but enjoy lower cost of ownership, especially avoiding high gas prices, and then get to sell the car at a premium in the used car market. Lightly used Teslas are currently selling for more than new Teslas due to the long wait times (6-12 months) for new vehicles to be delivered.
Lastly, you talk about the “inconvenience” of owning a Tesla. A Tesla owner can refuel in their garage overnight and wake to a fully fueled vehicle every morning. A Tesla owner can fuel at work. A Tesla owner has access to dedicated nationwide supercharger network for the rare drive exceeding 300 miles of range. Where, after driving 300 miles, they can gain 80% charge back in less time than it will take them to go to the bathroom and scarf down a fast food burger, before driving another 250 miles or more. Oh yeah, you just saved yourself a couple hundred dollars on fuel, so treat yourself to a nice dinner when you do stop for the night.
It wasn’t luck that Tesla succeeded, which is not to say they were guaranteed to succeed, but plenty of investors saw the vision early and knew this was something different. The first ever attempt to build a compelling EV from the ground up and give it real performance, not some compliance car/weird mobile. EVs are clearly better from a technology, performance, and cost of ownership perspective. The demand speaks for itself despite your unsupported concerns. Keep doubting Tesla, (I know you say you’re routing for them to succeed, though there’s little in the tone of your posts to suggest that’s the case), it hasn’t slowed their rapid ascent to date. If I listened to the talking heads,Wall Street, or message board wisdom, I’d sold years ago and missed out on tremendous gains. Tesla is just getting started.
-
Tesla's risk right now is factory shut downs like what we saw in Q2. It's not any of the nonsense about "all the lies about product timelines" or delays in models (which is really hypocritical to only complain about regarding Tesla and not every other manufacturer. Do I really need to link all the models that never came out for other automakers or model delays?). Tesla will be at 2 million+ run rate of volume in Q4. They're going to build an additional factory in Shanghai right beside the other one. Look at the gross margins. Look at the slow rate of growth in operating expenses compared to volume growth. The company basically has no debt and prints cash even in a bad quarter (Q2). This company is crushing it and is a massive growth opportunity in the next 5-10 years.
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.
Does anyone here actually do cost analysis for cars based on 5 years? Seems pretty short sighted for this crowd. Having owned and road tripped with a Model Y for about 7 months, do I believe my own experience or your non-owner "range anxiety and hours-long recharges" quip? I think I'll go with my own experience. In reality, supercharger stops on road trips are about 20 minutes. Can charge at home for daily. The inconvenience argument is old and tired. Regarding your critic status, at this point, you just sound like someone who's too proud to ever admit they're wrong and there is no profit, volume, or metric that will ever change your mind.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 |
Now compare their respective gross margins, operating margins, revenue growth, earnings growth, cash flow, and debt.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
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.
Base Model X - $121000 - This car is just plain ugly.
Base Model S - $105K - I like this one - not a fan of the steering wheel though. I remember it was released with $60000 now its almost double. That is just crazy.
Base Model Y - $66K
Base Model 3 - $47K
-
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 |
I was referring to the cost of ownership sidebar. If people want to buy tesla they either will or they wont, so far it looks like the price of entry is working.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
There is far more demand for new cars than there is supply - so prices are way up across the board. In this case Tesla is able to capture that directly and measure demand response to price increases directly. For a manufacturer like Ford or GM - sales are through dealers, and the dealers seem to be capturing most of the increased profit. Data going back to Ford or GM is going to be a lot more murky.
-
Do you all think the split will have any direct effect on the current stock price?
-
I drove Tesla model Y few days ago. Its a fine car, but felt too plain for a 74 thousand dollar car . I was not impressed.
-
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!
-
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!
Isn't the current post-split price an amount where an ape could buy one share with weekly after-tax earnings from a minimum wage job? Is that the reason for the splits?
-
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.
-
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 predict Tesla will go on a run between now and the eve of the Q3 earnings report that will have the SP in the neighborhood of ATHs. Current quarter, barring anything crazy in the final few weeks, is going to be record setting across the board. Overdue upgrade from ratings agencies to investment grade could bump stock price as well. Not investing advice and I’m holding regardless, just putting down a marker.
-
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 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 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 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 think the semi will see a lot of economic constraints... long haul trucking just isn't a prime use of battery tech. Fuel density and charging networks have a lot of work to do. How are you going to get a charger network on I-80 to handle any reasonable amount of big rig EV traffic? It requires entire new substations and high voltage lines. The AI on the other hand I agree will be a total game changer if it gets to the point of being completely driverless.
My personal guess, too, is that the cybertruck has difficulty meeting crash test requirements with that hard stainless construction. That's even more speculation on my part and it could be many factors, but I have yet to see any evidence that they've overcome this aspect.
-
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.
-
Ugh, my car got hit with a malfunctioning AC sensor, replacements for which are floating off the coast of California apparently. This isn't specific to electric cars, and should be temporary, but shows that supply chain issues affect more than just batteries. I can see how this'll make a dent in profits for a while yet.
-
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.
It's a 2017, so first-gen, but a little more range than the 2011-2016s that do like 80 or so. 2018 and later are 150+ miles but the price is higher.
We decided that for our road-trip use, even the newest/longest range stuff won't cut it because we have 5 family members and a ton of gear, so it's ICE for those scenarios for now. But we have a 20 minute commute (for the time being) and the Leaf saves us at least $100 a week versus the giant gas guzzler around town. If in a year we move closer in to town (or back to our old digs where there's no need to car commute at all) we'll sell it and as long as we can get like half the purchase price we'll have broken even.
I will say that rolling up to the gas station now in our ICE truck just seems... wrong. I literally feel weird doing it. I dread dealing with changing the oil or various filters or hearing about how I need the transmission flushed. So stupid.
Once there's a vehicle that can do all our stuff/people that's <$50k, I'll never own an ICE car again, I think. Hell, it might make sense to just rent an ICE minivan when we want to road trip.
We have yet to see how the Leaf does on snowy roads, but I've heard good things.
-W
-
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.
Crowded like this?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/08/business/chevrolet-equinox-ev/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/08/business/chevrolet-equinox-ev/index.html)
Tesla will soon be just one of a dozen luxury EV manufacturers.
-
ouch, baby.
very ouch.
-
Ah, Market does what Market does. I bet some folks are scratching their heads after today.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
It's amazing that even very wealthy people can still act like fawning sycophants.
-
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?
They currently have a huge order backlog so could easily deliver cars elsewhere if demand in China softens.
I think it was smart not to continue the practice of huge end of quarter disruption and added cost just to deliver by end of quarter for financial accounting.
It makes sense to have some small gap between produced and delivered, so if anything this is a 1x adjustment that is increasing productivity.
Pretty sure there will be significantly more cars delivered 4q than 3q showing that demand is more than sufficient at current production levels.
However I think the question is, how long can they continue to grow production at a high rate and still sell all their cars.
I feel they can do so in the near term but I think the jury is still out longer term.
-
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.
-
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.
See, someday the robot will drive a Cybertruck through a Boring underground tunnel to a Starship powered by solar roof shingles on its way to Elon's Mars colony.
And if that doesn't sound completely plausible to you, just wait for the next product announcement which will fill in the gaps with a new Thing Of The Moment!
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
I really wish they would throw him out. I've been trying to differentiate between him and the company, but it is more difficult than other companies because he's become such a media whore. I want to tell him to shut his pie hole, no cares about his opinoin on the war!
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.
Musk usefulness could continue if he gets tesla a good deal on lithium mined off mars via spacex, but barring that, I'm not sure.
I'm sure you aren't the only consumer put off of tesla products by this baffoon. And that is why I wonder if he is more harm than good at this point. And I worry equally about how that might alienate critical talent now and forward.
-
With Elon there is the hardworking incredible genius and the cringe \ foolish tweets and needless distractions \ foolishness like on\off\on Twitter purchase and Ukraine plan.
I would love to have the hardworking genius without the other stuff but it's a complete package. The genius Elon is exceptional and has probably done more to save the planet from global warming than anyone else ever.
People who are brilliant and exceptional are sometimes crazy in other ways.
Hopefully we get more of the focused hardworking genius and less of the cringe.
-
All companies have regular attrition. Top talents come and go. Cross pollination is very common in the tech industry. Tesla and SpaceX remain to be the #1 and #2 destinations for top school graduates.
Tesla has the lion's share of the EV sales. It only makes sense for their market share to come down. However, Tesla's sales volume will continue to grow while its
market share goes down. EV sales from all car manufacturers will be taking shares from internal combustion engine car sales.
Elon Musk is a missionary. You are not going to find an ordinary person who is a missionary running an extraordinary company. See history(Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc). Social media certainly amplifies a lot of things.
The stock has always been volatile, and Elon Musk has always been Elon Musk.
Just the sales from Model Y, 3, S, and X alone will make Tesla lots of money for years to come. You can discount the energy products, FSD, the semi, cybertruck, insurance, supercharging, service, etc. All those things will be gravy if/when they become a bigger part of the picture.
The Tesla today is much stronger than the Tesla 5 years ago. Let's imagine 5 years from now, do you think Tesla will be weaker or stronger?
Having said all that, we are in a bear market. Most stocks go down in a bear market.
Interest rates have gone up. People who will need a loan to buy a car may now think twice before buying a car. This will impact sales to some degree. This affects all car manufacturers.
If we get a recession/hard landing, sales will definitely be affected.
When all the chaos stop, will Tesla be able to continue to execute or will Tesla be in a worse shape? I'd like to think it's the former.
-
He is just an aggressive business man with very high risk appetite, vision and enough luck on his side. He is not an engineer nor a genius. He has ability to choose right managers and package existing ideas into successful products. His success with Tesla has paid him off well and also set off industry to catch up.
He is also a jerk and not just that. An abuser of employees and women from various reports we have seen. So much more.
I cant give him a pass because he has been a visionary in his field and built some successful businesses.
-
Is he worse than Jobs? Does Twitter just enable us to see what would have stayed behind closed doors before?
As news about Gates' many affairs--and enabling of Jeffrey Epstein--is slowly reaching the public, I think a lot of us are going to have to be realistic about how our heroes and our values interact.
-
There exists a class of billionaires who are above the law - above even the standards of good taste - and we poor or middle class people idolize them for achieving freedom from all accountability and for having the money we genuinely think would make us happy. In our deep subconscious, in the places where we barter with gods, we imagine ourselves as their allies and quislings, and declare them geniuses. Perhaps they'll visit someday, make us their friends, and maybe offer us jobs?
-
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/
-
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.
-
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.
Urgh. We've been over this in this very thread. Average =/= median. It is deceiving. This is statistics 101. You can sell 9 hamburgers at $10 and one hamburger at $100. The average hamburger in this scenario is $19, despite most people paying $10 per hamburger.
Tesla, by their own admission, are selling premium (not economy) vehicles. See their comparison chart on (page 33) of their impact report. The only references to affordable vehicles are in their long term responsibilities of the board members (page 78)
https://www.tesla.com/impact-report/2020
Now, if you do long term cost of ownership scenarios and have an environmental bone in your body, Tesla are quite appealing. But it is through rose colored glasses that they are selling economy vehicles. It's simply not true. I can get any number of very decent new vehicles for $25K. These are cars built much better than your Yugo straw man, such as a Prius, HR-V, Civic, Soul, Crosstrek, etc.
-
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
I was talking global market share. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that declining market share is not as big an issue as some people think. The EV market will be huge. Every EV sale will be taken from an ICE sale.
I have a lot of respect for Chinese EV makers. Nio, Xpeng, BYD, just to name a few. They are hard working and most of them have no baggage(legacy ICE business, dealerships, etc). They just need to get to volume production and I have no doubt that they will, especially when some of them have support from the government. I hope one day they'll export to the U.S. because they have some great looking cars at reasonable prices. They'll be a force to be reckoned with.
To the folks who don't like Elon Musk, have you let your dislike color your judgement on the Tesla products and businesses?
-
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.
-
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.
Pretty big difference in affordability between poorer people being able to pay monthly for a fancy phone and phone plan, and being able to pay monthly for a new luxury car and all the costs that go with it. 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.
-
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.
-
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.
this in itself is a rather whimsical post, and thank you for that! Really appreciate this pov. I'm sure there are many CEO who I would think very highly of, if they tweeted out all their seemy thoughts and ideas.....
(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.
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.
-
from wikipedia:
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]
So musk seemed to be looking for the robots to initially work on the tesla manufacturing side, not sure how long I will have to wait for my rosie....
-
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.
-
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.
how would we ever know? ;P
And I wasn't thinking it was going to be out in time for christmas or anything.....
For decades, we moaned about jet packs never becoming a reality and then boom - they happened. Unortunately, my bones are too old to try that out......but i'll always be up for a robot for household tasks.
-
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
-
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]
-
What about the jet pack guy at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics opening ceremonies?
That made a big impression on 8 year old me. A quick google search shows that the technology hasn't really gotten a lot better in the last 40 years, though - still terrifyingly dangerous, impractical, and outrageously expensive.
-W
-
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.
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.
-
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.
yep - proof will be in the pudding, one way or another.
-
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.
At the end of the day, it comes down to sales volume and profit margins. They may have higher margins than legacy auto makers, but it's not 10 times what the legacy makers are making. They may be able to lose market share and still increase volume in a growing EV market. But competition always brings prices down, and there is more truly competitive competition every day. You've now got both startups and legacy OEMs adding very solid EV options in market segments that Tesla doesn't compete in. They're not the young, nimble, startup that is racing to market anymore.
The legacy companies don't have much in the way of dealer related costs. Dealers are privately owned. They are technically the OEM's closest customers. TSLA owns their brick and mortar locations outright which are costs that the legacy OEMs don't have so it's a bit of a two way street. As Tesla grows, they'll need more and more brick and mortar, filled with more and more inventory, employees, etc. Tesla now isn't the same as it was 5 years ago, and it's overhead will continue to grow as the company does. Just as Tesla has changed in recent years to resemble more of a real OEM, the legacy OEMs have adapted as well and their operations now are not what they were in the past. Historically, the legacy dealers have resulted in customer interaction issues and excess inventory that can be problematic for the legacy OEMs. But the pandemic forced many of them to streamline their sales operation using the internet while production shortages have essentially eliminated the excess inventory problems. The legacy OEMs have learned that they can survive pretty well by focusing on limited production of highly profitable products (which has been Tesla's playbook) but their shares aren't priced like TSLA either.
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
-
Speculation built into the price and limited upside is an opinion you have that could be right or wrong.
There are analysts that project 12 months price targets around the 350 level just based on continued high increases in revenue and profit from the core car business.
Obviously they could be wrong and they typically have a “bull” case that is higher than this and a “bear” case where the stock declines. But the analysts have crunched numbers that show how stock price could increase ant certain profit growth levels and they are aware of all the market share numbers.
Of course they could be wrong and revenue growth and margins could flatten which would bring the price down
But nothing in the market is actually priced to perfection,at least in terms of what the market overall perceives as the future performance of the company. If the speculative things succeeding is already assumed the bull case for the stock would be essentially no or little increase since the most optimistic possible performance is already baked into the price.
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.
But maybe I am wrong about the potential and should have sold it already and taken the tax hit on profits. We’ll see in a few years.
-
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.
-
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
This is quite a good summary of where I sit. I'll also throw speculation on the ability to scale things like solar and charger networks. I think both of these projects are going to be more difficult to scale than appears to the general investor. Infrastructure is going to limit the ability to grow at the pace they are growing now. There are a lot of expensive grid (and materials) limitations. As the price of solar installs drops (and more solar comes online), I also suspect that the perks for installing will diminish for most grids.
I work in the energy industry field, and it is surprising how many assumptions are built into general planning programs here (cities/municipalities and even states developing net-zero plans but not putting into place nearly enough resources to get there). It's all just built on assumptions that it will happen, but... whew it's gonna be a lot of work and politicians talking doesn't fuel the grid no matter how helpful that would be!
-
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'm not some "short" that wants to see the stock fail, and I'm not anti-EV either. I say that to indicate that I don't particularly care one way or the other about the returns that specific TSLA investors get. A lot of very rabid TSLA supporters in this thread and elsewhere have little or no auto industry experience, and it shows in their posts. I work in the industry, and try to share some perspectives that I think may be helpful to anybody holding the stock to at least consider. I'm no prophet or soothesayer, but being honest about potential hurdles, and difficulties seems like something that a rational investor might want. Hearing nothing but "Rah rah" yes men gets you screwed eventually. You certainly don't have to act on my opinions. I'm just sharing to try and provide some more balanced perspective.
-
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
-
I bought Tesla a couple of years back so it’s been good so far and I plan to hold it for several more years.
What would trigger you to sell? Is there a well defined plan for that or just winging it?
The reason I ask is that I see lots of TSLA holders that seem to be emotionally connected to owning that stock rather than rationally investing based on whatever factor they choose. That's a powerful market force, but it's also irrational.
My tentative plan is to hold it until I retire in roughly 4 or five years, and then sell it in a tax efficient manner, probably spread over a couple years. It is less than 5% of my investments, but a much bigger proportion than that in terms of non-retirement fund investments. So it’s an important chunk of my time bridge to get access to the retirement funds.
right now if I sold, I would have to pay roughly 20% of the sales price in taxes. If selling in retirement, my plan would be to do so in such a way (managing yearly income levels) that it’s tax free. Of course, I always retain the option of selling it earlier, but I would have to be convinced that it’s over priced by at least 20%. I do keep an eye on the stock but I’m not a believer in market timing and for example if something bad happens the price would probably go down before I could take advantage of that info.
So for me, it’s a subjective analysis, but I also err in terms of thinking that things are generally priced correctly, hence, most of my holdings are in index funds. But I have made a couple of small growth bets.
Probably the scenario where I would be most likely to sell and take the tax hit would be a very large run up in price and I would have to evaluate how sustainable I think it is.
-
I bought Tesla a couple of years back so it’s been good so far and I plan to hold it for several more years.
What would trigger you to sell? Is there a well defined plan for that or just winging it?
The reason I ask is that I see lots of TSLA holders that seem to be emotionally connected to owning that stock rather than rationally investing based on whatever factor they choose. That's a powerful market force, but it's also irrational.
by contrast, you seem emotionally connected to tesla for negative outcomes that is irrational. It's like you actively don't want tesla investors to do well off their investment in it.
Just trying to balance out some of what I see as irrational exuberance. Tesla the company has surprised me with their performance over the last 3-4 years. I once doubted their long term viability as a company, and I no longer do. That doesn't mean that I think their stock price is justified, or that everything that they do is going to lead to even higher valuations.
I don't hold TSLA stock outside of whatever is in the indexes that I own. I don't particularly care one way or the other about the returns that specific TSLA investors get. A lot of very rabid TSLA supporters in this thread and elsewhere have little or no auto industry experience, and it shows in their posts. I work in the industry, and try to share some perspectives that I think may be helpful to anybody holding the stock to at least consider. I'm no prophet or soothesayer, but being honest about potential hurdles, and difficulties seems like something that a rational investor might want. Hearing nothing but "Rah rah" yes men gets you screwed eventually. You certainly don't have to act on my opinions. I'm just sharing to try and provide some more balanced perspective.
That seems reasonable. I don't think I'm overly "rah rah" but I do see them as being much more than a car manufacturer and so the lining up of market caps on only that dimension seems very short sighted.
Even completely discounting my beloved Rosie!
https://youtu.be/1pphyvgd7-k
In Q1 of 2022, the company had $18.75B in revenue. Automotive revenue (including credits) was $16.86B of that total.
The same quarter had total gross profit of $5.46B with automotive profit coming in at $5.54B.
When a hair under 90% of your revenue, and 101% of your profit comes from cars, I think it's fair to call you a car company.
https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/IOSHZZ_TSLA_Q1_2022_Update_G9MOZE.pdf?xseo=&response-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3D%22TSLA-Q1-2022-Update.pdf%22
-
One thing that is holding me to tesla has been the company's environmental focus. Other companies are jumping on the EV band wagon to serve changing consumer preferences, whereas tesla created those preferences for a higher good. Also the integration of tesla roof, powerwall, and homecharging seem the best way for individual consumers to significantly lower their own footprint. These are critical aspects of the company for me.
I just read back through this a bit and for me the Tesla environmental focus is more marketing than substance. This is taken from a bird's eye view of the company. On ground level I'm sure there are plenty of dedicated environmentalists, and compared to other vehicle companies they might have a leg up. EVs in general are better than ICEs, but their entire business model relies on consumerism to fluorish. Mine more lithium for more batteries, make more roads for cars (and deter public transit options such as trains in the process), etc.
Again, Elon is a claimed "first principles" thinker, and as such he isn't doing much in terms of reducing consumption, which is much better for the environment than switching consumption (a first-principled approach). He is no where near some of the more environmentally focused companies, such as the currently popular Pategonia, or those working in gov't to pass regulations to allow for more dense housing, etc.
He wants you in a mansion, driving lots of Teslas and getting lazy while doing so.
-
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.
-
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.
-
was reading an articule about musk selling perfume his twitter followers to help pay for twitter, but the article noted that he'll have to sell tesla shares if he has to buy twitter.....
and the price is kind of down, more so than the market of late.
poor guy!
-
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?
-
Yeah, you made a serious error in math there. Per share price doesn't matter when discussing value of a company - total market cap does. Samsung is about $266 billion whereas Apple is about $2.3 trillion, so about 10x Samsung. But! Samsung makes everything from refrigerators to TVs to integrated circuits. They even make displays for Apple. It's hard to compare company value "apples to apples" when talking about a company as diversified as Samsung versus a more focused company like Apple.
Tesla VS VW is also about a 10x difference in valuation. Tesla is $691b and VW is $77b. So pretty comparable to Apple vs Samsung in value. So does that seem fair to you? I don't have an opinion either way, I'm an indexer.
-
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.
-
https://electrek.co/2022/10/18/us-electric-vehicle-sales-by-maker-and-ev-model-through-q3-2022/
Quarter by quarter here how quickly EV market share is changing...
"EV pioneer Tesla remains the market leader, with 64% of the share, down from 66% in Q2 and 75% in Q1. The declining share was inevitable as legacy automakers look to catch Tesla’s success, racing to fill the growing demand for electric vehicles."
-
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)
-
I'm not necessarily concerned about the fair value of the company because investors can be irrational. I'm concerned about the potential gains a new investment might see. For that, I do think that comparing share prices is a relevant metric. Obviously, each company has different factors that impact profitability, but as Tesla grows and other OEMs adjust their offerings and strategies, there's an increasing amount of similarity between them. So if they're increasingly similar, I'd likely choose to invest new money into the company that seems to have more upside potential.
How so? Still very lost here. Is a 10% gain in share price different if a $10,000 investment buys 100 or 250 shares? (No is the answer)
TSLA has an outsized share price compared to industry peers. However, this year TSLA (-44.9% YTD) has seen a very comparable drop in price this year to GM (-45.2%), Ford (-44.6%), etc which tells me the market sees them as a car company at this point. So, I see TSLA's current high price as an outlier for a car company. I'm not confident betting on any outlier to continue to outpace their peers over a very long time frame. Especially as that outlier is losing market share and seeing viable competition (not just in number but in quality) enter the market at a break neck pace. I don't see how they're likely to maintain that enormous spread.
So if I were going to invest $10k into an individual car company's stock (I'm not. This is all just theory for me.) TSLA would not be my choice. My money would go towards what I consider to be a more reasonably priced stock closer to the industry average in price. Likely a legacy OEM rather than an upstart EV automaker such as Rivian or Lucid, but I might be convinced that the cheap upstarts could have more upside if it was just play money.
-
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.
-
Neither Ford nor GM have their largest share holder on the hook for buying a $15 billion dollar company for $44 billion via debt, though.
So your theory is that TSLA has just coincidentally dropped an amount equal to Ford and GM because of some combination of auto market forces + Elon's outside interests? Unless Tesla funds are to be used for that sale, I'm not sure why that's relevant to TSLA's share price. That all seems like a stretch to me when there's a much more simple explanation.
If anything that Elon does outside of Tesla has drastic impacts on the price of TSLA, isn't that basically admitting that the current price is a bit irrational and may not be entirely based on something tangible? How long might that continue? Would you want to put new money into that stock?
-
https://electrek.co/2022/10/18/us-electric-vehicle-sales-by-maker-and-ev-model-through-q3-2022/
Quarter by quarter here how quickly EV market share is changing...
"EV pioneer Tesla remains the market leader, with 64% of the share, down from 66% in Q2 and 75% in Q1. The declining share was inevitable as legacy automakers look to catch Tesla’s success, racing to fill the growing demand for electric vehicles."
Eh, I wouldn't read too much into the quarter-by-quarter numbers. It's great for the world that the other manufacturers are ramping - but keep in mind that half of the Tesla factories are in startup mode with output around 1k/week. Giga Shanghai is at about 20k/week by now - and still ramping. Both Austin and Berlin are supposed to at least equal Shanghai once ramped.
-
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)
-
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...)
-
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...)
Right, quite a few publications have been writing negative articles on tesla for years. Just because they are name brand publications doesn't make them authoritative on all subjects. Readers who listened to them to stay out of TSLA have lost huge opportunities and yet no one has called them out on it. For people who have been wrong about Tesla for years, don't they go through some kind of self reflection to see why they've been wrong in order to improve? What makes them think they're still right after being wrong for so many years? The market can mis-price securities short term but it's rarely wrong long term.
-
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.
-
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.
-
TSLA has an outsized share price compared to industry peers. However, this year TSLA (-44.9% YTD) has seen a very comparable drop in price this year to GM (-45.2%), Ford (-44.6%), etc which tells me the market sees them as a car company at this point. So, I see TSLA's current high price as an outlier for a car company.
That's such a strange way to label companies. Currently Alibaba is down ~39.5% YTD compared to Tesla's -41.4%. Is it a car company?
It doesn't seem that odd to me. Tesla makes and sells cars. Almost all of their revenue and profit come from making and selling cars. They're subject to many of the same market forces as other car companies and their share price has performed in line with other car companies lately.
Genuine question (because I think the answer might help understand some assertions made here): do you believe all companies have the same number of outstanding shares?
Of course not.
-
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.
then there is the solar roof, solar panels, and powerwall.
Tesla founder Elon Musk is turning a neighborhood in Austin, Texas, into a solar-powered destination.
In a new partnership with real estate developer Dacra and alternative asset manager Brookfield Asset Management, Tesla has already begun construction on the neighborhood in Southeast Austin, The Independent reported.
Tesla has deployed new Powerpacks near Sydney, Australia, to serve as a new “community battery” for the neighborhood.
Over the last few years, Tesla’s energy storage division has been focusing on bigger projects using its Megapack product, but Powerpacks are still in play.
They have been used in mid-size commercial projects and Tesla is finding a different market for the product.
Tesla and Pacific Gas & Electric have launched a program to aggregate the storage in ratepayers’ Tesla Powerwalls to provide emergency power to California’s grid when intense heat drives up demand on the system this summer and the summer of 2023. Participating residential and other distributed battery owners will be paid $2 per kWh for exporting power to the system when supplies are crimped from 4 p.m.–9 p.m. between May 1 and October 31.
But it'll be a "surprise" when tesla starts making major money from energy, according to you.
-
oh, and now robots.... :D
-
oh, and now robots.... :D
Boston Dynamics was bought by Hyundai last year. Their robots are a lot more functional than the Tesla robot but it didn't make the company worth more than $1B.
-
With 35,000+ Superchargers, Tesla owns and operates the largest global, fast charging network in the world. Located on major routes near convenient amenities, Superchargers keep you charged when you're away from home. Simply plug in, charge and go.
then there is the solar roof, solar panels, and powerwall.
Tesla founder Elon Musk is turning a neighborhood in Austin, Texas, into a solar-powered destination.
In a new partnership with real estate developer Dacra and alternative asset manager Brookfield Asset Management, Tesla has already begun construction on the neighborhood in Southeast Austin, The Independent reported.
Tesla has deployed new Powerpacks near Sydney, Australia, to serve as a new “community battery” for the neighborhood.
Over the last few years, Tesla’s energy storage division has been focusing on bigger projects using its Megapack product, but Powerpacks are still in play.
They have been used in mid-size commercial projects and Tesla is finding a different market for the product.
Tesla and Pacific Gas & Electric have launched a program to aggregate the storage in ratepayers’ Tesla Powerwalls to provide emergency power to California’s grid when intense heat drives up demand on the system this summer and the summer of 2023. Participating residential and other distributed battery owners will be paid $2 per kWh for exporting power to the system when supplies are crimped from 4 p.m.–9 p.m. between May 1 and October 31.
But it'll be a "surprise" when tesla starts making major money from energy, according to you.
Coming from the energy industry... these things sound good on paper, but in reality are going to be hard to scale. I know it looks like they're ramping up, and certain aspects of VTG (vehicle to grid) charging are extremely promising. But true grid scale lithium-ion battery storage to pair with solar power is a bit optimistic. The negative externalities of greenhouse gasses are in front for us to see right now. But there are lots of negative externalities with solar that are just brushed under the rug. The amount of environmental damage done from mining lithium, and social damage due to the minining conditions of the source countries, should not be underwritten. There is a reason that lithium mines are hard to open in the US- they wreak havoc on the water supply (much worse than fracking does) and the working conditions are abysmal. Not to mention the sheer amount of land needed to dedicate to solar.
Relying on a low-desnity, intermittent energy source just flies in the face of economic and national security. Most of the silicone used in solar panels is made in China, they don't work as well in certain climates, etc. 3% of the current energy in the US comes from solar. This is the easiest 3% to get. As more solar comes online, it will be harder to use it... this will become an exponential problem as to use the solar, more batteries will be needed to account for non-producing times. Right now we can just dump the excess into the grid and pretend it's a net-zero practice. Eventually, that excess will have to dump into more and more batteries... using more resources and cost and failure points.
This is a side tangent that leads to what I think is seriously under considered. If we were to instead focus all of our public PR onto nuclear power we could solve all of these problems. Nationally sourced entire power supply chain, low land usage, reliable in all climates, safer than all other power per kWh, no need for grid batteries, able to produce hydrogen and desalinate water, micro reactors to power those semi mega-chargers that the grid can't handle. Close to 20% of the current energy supply is from Nuclear, and that's plants that we built 40 years ago! Imagine what we could do if we actually built modern ones!!
Have you heard the saying that Trump is a poor man's idea of what it looks like to be a rich man? I my mind, Tesla holds a similar spot as an energy-novice's idea of what it looks like to be an energy expert. They say and look like they are the best at what they do, but most of what they do is pouring resources in the wrong direction, at least from a grid energy standpoint (I'll bite my tongue on the 8,000 steel people movers for now). 10 years ago they were ridiculed for their vision, now they are succeeding so in the public eye they generally are resilient to criticism. I hold a bit of a negative view of this in particular because I work in state and municipal net-zeron planning and it is now just assumed that entire fleets of the countries vehicles are going to be electric. No plans for actually having a grid to charge them, or supply chain/resources to make them (we still cannot get enough vehicles to the upper-middle class, much less work utility vehicles), or even vehicles with functions that are needed. It has a good chance of all crashing down and we'll be 10 years behind on projects that could have been seen earlier. I try to not be contrarian here, but it is coming from a place of concern, not anti-EV or anything.
There is another saying that comes to mind: "It is difficult to get a person to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it". Take Tesla's word on their progress with a grain of salt. Their energy division literally cannot understand otherwise; they've sunk too much cost into their commitment to batteries + solar.
-
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?
-
That's such a strange way to label companies. Currently Alibaba is down ~39.5% YTD compared to Tesla's -41.4%. Is it a car company?
Genuine question (because I think the answer might help understand some assertions made here): do you believe all companies have the same number of outstanding shares?
There must some weird terminology misinterpretation that we are failing to see. Maybe price is not price? Or at least share price is not share price? I can come up with no possible way that someone would think share price means anything when comparing company A to company B. Maybe we should ask what happens with a stock split?
3 scoops of ice cream and all the trims?
-
With 35,000+ Superchargers, Tesla owns and operates the largest global, fast charging network in the world. Located on major routes near convenient amenities, Superchargers keep you charged when you're away from home. Simply plug in, charge and go.
then there is the solar roof, solar panels, and powerwall.
Tesla founder Elon Musk is turning a neighborhood in Austin, Texas, into a solar-powered destination.
In a new partnership with real estate developer Dacra and alternative asset manager Brookfield Asset Management, Tesla has already begun construction on the neighborhood in Southeast Austin, The Independent reported.
Tesla has deployed new Powerpacks near Sydney, Australia, to serve as a new “community battery” for the neighborhood.
Over the last few years, Tesla’s energy storage division has been focusing on bigger projects using its Megapack product, but Powerpacks are still in play.
They have been used in mid-size commercial projects and Tesla is finding a different market for the product.
Tesla and Pacific Gas & Electric have launched a program to aggregate the storage in ratepayers’ Tesla Powerwalls to provide emergency power to California’s grid when intense heat drives up demand on the system this summer and the summer of 2023. Participating residential and other distributed battery owners will be paid $2 per kWh for exporting power to the system when supplies are crimped from 4 p.m.–9 p.m. between May 1 and October 31.
But it'll be a "surprise" when tesla starts making major money from energy, according to you.
Coming from the energy industry... these things sound good on paper, but in reality are going to be hard to scale. I know it looks like they're ramping up, and certain aspects of VTG (vehicle to grid) charging are extremely promising. But true grid scale lithium-ion battery storage to pair with solar power is a bit optimistic. The negative externalities of greenhouse gasses are in front for us to see right now. But there are lots of negative externalities with solar that are just brushed under the rug. The amount of environmental damage done from mining lithium, and social damage due to the minining conditions of the source countries, should not be underwritten. There is a reason that lithium mines are hard to open in the US- they wreak havoc on the water supply (much worse than fracking does) and the working conditions are abysmal. Not to mention the sheer amount of land needed to dedicate to solar.
Relying on a low-desnity, intermittent energy source just flies in the face of economic and national security. Most of the silicone used in solar panels is made in China, they don't work as well in certain climates, etc. 3% of the current energy in the US comes from solar. This is the easiest 3% to get. As more solar comes online, it will be harder to use it... this will become an exponential problem as to use the solar, more batteries will be needed to account for non-producing times. Right now we can just dump the excess into the grid and pretend it's a net-zero practice. Eventually, that excess will have to dump into more and more batteries... using more resources and cost and failure points.
This is a side tangent that leads to what I think is seriously under considered. If we were to instead focus all of our public PR onto nuclear power we could solve all of these problems. Nationally sourced entire power supply chain, low land usage, reliable in all climates, safer than all other power per kWh, no need for grid batteries, able to produce hydrogen and desalinate water, micro reactors to power those semi mega-chargers that the grid can't handle. Close to 20% of the current energy supply is from Nuclear, and that's plants that we built 40 years ago! Imagine what we could do if we actually built modern ones!!
Have you heard the saying that Trump is a poor man's idea of what it looks like to be a rich man? I my mind, Tesla holds a similar spot as an energy-novice's idea of what it looks like to be an energy expert. They say and look like they are the best at what they do, but most of what they do is pouring resources in the wrong direction, at least from a grid energy standpoint (I'll bite my tongue on the 8,000 steel people movers for now). 10 years ago they were ridiculed for their vision, now they are succeeding so in the public eye they generally are resilient to criticism. I hold a bit of a negative view of this in particular because I work in state and municipal net-zeron planning and it is now just assumed that entire fleets of the countries vehicles are going to be electric. No plans for actually having a grid to charge them, or supply chain/resources to make them (we still cannot get enough vehicles to the upper-middle class, much less work utility vehicles), or even vehicles with functions that are needed. It has a good chance of all crashing down and we'll be 10 years behind on projects that could have been seen earlier. I try to not be contrarian here, but it is coming from a place of concern, not anti-EV or anything.
There is another saying that comes to mind: "It is difficult to get a person to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it". Take Tesla's word on their progress with a grain of salt. Their energy division literally cannot understand otherwise; they've sunk too much cost into their commitment to batteries + solar.
But I am not arguing that they will necessarily succeed at this, just that it is already part of the company, and they do have a good amount of focus in it.
the point was a poster said they are way over vlaued, but if they "become" an energy company then it's different! No, they are already doing it.
If people want to put in their bets that tesla is going to soar or slide or fall, hey - all fair, all good.
And if you wanna say - who knows what's going to happend with that maniac musk at the helm - could go anywhere. Also fair. And - a pretty good point!
But don't go making wildly definitive statements, and then subltly try to slide in a disclaimer that is already baked into their business plan. Because if tesla sinks - energy and all - then they go crowing I was right! And if tesla soars and someone says - you were wrong - and then no....look at this tiny sentence I squeazed in there so that if they do do energy piece than I'm not wrong.
I'm just calling bullshit on that. You want to make bold statements - have at it. But if you are looking to crow when you are right you better suck it up when you are wrong.
-
Coming from the energy industry... these things sound good on paper, but in reality are going to be hard to scale. I know it looks like they're ramping up, and certain aspects of VTG (vehicle to grid) charging are extremely promising. But true grid scale lithium-ion battery storage to pair with solar power is a bit optimistic.
I suggest reviewing the projects already under development. Here's a starter from ERCOT: https://www.ercot.com/misdownload/servlets/mirDownload?doclookupId=868860006
A "mere" 63 GW for a grid which has seen an all time peak demand of ~80 GW and already has almost 2 GW of installed battery storage. Minimum of 4GWh per GW per ERCOT requirements.
Let me guess: Your energy industry experience is primarily with fossil fuels. Your parroting of fossil fuel disinformation about environmental impacts of lithium, the distraction which is nuclear*, etc are quite telling.
*Seriously, nobody in the USA or Europe is capable of building a nuclear reactor even remotely close to on time or on budget. I'd love if we could cost-effectively build more nuclear power - but that's not the reality today. At best it's a distraction promulgated by the fossil fuel industry - not something realistic.
Sure, we should keep up the research with the small scale nuclear like NuScale - but the current Giga scale nuclear construction industry is an utter project management disaster.
-
Let me guess: Your energy industry experience is primarily with fossil fuels. Your parroting of fossil fuel disinformation about environmental impacts of lithium, the distraction which is nuclear*, etc are quite telling.
Nope! wrong there! I work with energy auditing- we are very up to date on current and upcoming technology. I do a lot of heat pump evaluations and net-zero retrofits for the east coast. Sorry to bust yer bubble, but I want this transition to happen more than you. It's the entire reason I entered the field. And part of the reason I'm pushing so hard on this. I think focusing resources on solar and lithium batteries is not the direction to go.., but it has a religious following that is deeper than just analysis. It goes back to that Southpark episode where all the san franscisco drivers are walkign around saying they want to be part of the solution and not the problem. It's just so high and mighty without trying to be objective, and for a movement supposedly based on science it bugs me.
*Seriously, nobody in the USA or Europe is capable of building a nuclear reactor even remotely close to on time or on budget. I'd love if we could cost-effectively build more nuclear power - but that's not the reality today.
Ah, so now who's parroting industry talking points? Better be careful in that glass house of yours.
A) Nuclear enjoys zero subsidies that solar does. Subsidize it and level the playing field.
B) Nuclear enjoys zero public support- it is criminally criminalized. To the point that it takes 10 years to build a plant because not only is there public push back each step of the way, we allow the public to push back on issues that they aren't educated enough on. We could build them in 4 years if the public would get out of the way. Nuclear has safety standards and regulations that would annihilate any other industry. Which leads me to...
C) China can! China builds them in 3-4 years! How about that... and they're safe! Certainlly safer than that dam that killed 230,000 people in China when it broke. Guess how many people have died from nuclear? Chernobyl was ~45 people during the event, then another 4-5000 from cancer afterwards. That's peanuts. And that was an incredibly outdated reactor run by incompetent teams.
I suggest reviewing the projects already under development. Here's a starter from ERCOT: https://www.ercot.com/misdownload/servlets/mirDownload?doclookupId=868860006
Uh, one thing that battery folks often get very wrong is the distinction between GW and GWh. It's pretty easy to make a battery that peak shaves some expensive solar for a few hours. It's exponentially more difficult to make one that can handle long term grid energy storage. Huge grid batteries will help with peaker plant issues and grid management for solar and AC curbing in the south and southwest. But for, say, heating Chicago in the winter? Ha! Never going to make economic or resource sense. Speaking of things that haven't been done in the US or Europe, aside from hydro pumping in the mountainous regions, never have we build a long term grid battery storage. At least we used to build nuclear plants.
p.s. this isn't meant to be directed at you. I'm mainly yelling into the void. It seems so frustrating that the folks who would want this to happen most would be able to be most critical of it, but instead it's like walking through a field of horses with blinders on. I'm being hyperbolic, of course, I have my errors and need to be more humble.
-
Let me guess: Your energy industry experience is primarily with fossil fuels. Your parroting of fossil fuel disinformation about environmental impacts of lithium, the distraction which is nuclear*, etc are quite telling.
Nope! wrong there! I work with energy auditing- we are very up to date on current and upcoming technology. I do a lot of heat pump evaluations and net-zero retrofits for the east coast. Sorry to bust yer bubble, but I want this transition to happen more than you. It's the entire reason I entered the field. And part of the reason I'm pushing so hard on this. I think focusing resources on solar and lithium batteries is not the direction to go.., but it has a religious following that is deeper than just analysis. It goes back to that Southpark episode where all the san franscisco drivers are walkign around saying they want to be part of the solution and not the problem. It's just so high and mighty without trying to be objective, and for a movement supposedly based on science it bugs me.
so I have a quibble with this. So - there is an issue, and people have various ideas on addressing the issue, and then someone does something towards a solution idea they had.
And then someone else just criticizes it. Are you not free to go off and do your own "better idea"? Make that happen? If I'm going to pursue something - I'm going to work on my idea, not yours. You go do yours. If you can't make yours happen, why are you looking to me to make that happen for you? I've got my own idea.
as for nuclear, I'm not a fan. You be the peanut. I'm going to jelly over here on my own.
maybe do nuclear on the moon?
-
But I am not arguing that they will necessarily succeed at this, just that it is already part of the company, and they do have a good amount of focus in it.
the point was a poster said they are way over vlaued, but if they "become" an energy company then it's different! No, they are already doing it.
If people want to put in their bets that tesla is going to soar or slide or fall, hey - all fair, all good.
And if you wanna say - who knows what's going to happend with that maniac musk at the helm - could go anywhere. Also fair. And - a pretty good point!
But don't go making wildly definitive statements, and then subltly try to slide in a disclaimer that is already baked into their business plan. Because if tesla sinks - energy and all - then they go crowing I was right! And if tesla soars and someone says - you were wrong - and then no....look at this tiny sentence I squeazed in there so that if they do do energy piece than I'm not wrong.
I'm just calling bullshit on that. You want to make bold statements - have at it. But if you are looking to crow when you are right you better suck it up when you are wrong.
Ackchyually... I said that if the business model changes and they become more of an energy company...
Reality is that almost all of their revenue and profit currently comes from making and selling cars. That is their current business model. I'm aware that they have other products related to energy, but they're a car company through and through at the moment and their continued investment in that segment indicates they have no immediate plans of changing that. Energy doesn't seem to be a focus for them at the moment and they're not anywhere close to changing their entire business model to become more of an energy company as I suggested in my post.
If they make a significant change in strategy and begin to pursue their energy products more seriously and profitably then that would change things. But they'd be a very different business competing in a very different market at that point.
Some examples of that sort of switch might be
- Switching to CCS charging standard and opening the Supercharger network to all EVs (this has been discussed and I think makes a ton of sense for them to pursue, but it's just speculation still)
- Downsizing or halting expansion of the overhead heavy auto manufacturing/sales/support network rather than expanding and scaling up
- Pursuing cheaper, less volatile battery storage for home backup power rather than doubling down on Li-Ion
-
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.
-
*Seriously, nobody in the USA or Europe is capable of building a nuclear reactor even remotely close to on time or on budget. I'd love if we could cost-effectively build more nuclear power - but that's not the reality today.
Ah, so now who's parroting industry talking points? Better be careful in that glass house of yours.
A) Nuclear enjoys zero subsidies that solar does. Subsidize it and level the playing field.
B) Nuclear enjoys zero public support- it is criminally criminalized. To the point that it takes 10 years to build a plant because not only is there public push back each step of the way, we allow the public to push back on issues that they aren't educated enough on. We could build them in 4 years if the public would get out of the way. Nuclear has safety standards and regulations that would annihilate any other industry. Which leads me to...
C) China can! China builds them in 3-4 years! How about that... and they're safe! Certainlly safer than that dam that killed 230,000 people in China when it broke. Guess how many people have died from nuclear? Chernobyl was ~45 people during the event, then another 4-5000 from cancer afterwards. That's peanuts. And that was an incredibly outdated reactor run by incompetent teams.
LOL! C'mon - China? You know that's not a viable alternative in the USA or Europe.
All modern giga-scale nuclear build attempts in the USA and Europe have been project management failures. 4 AP1000 reactors in the USA, all of them massively blew their budgets and timeframes. Two were abandoned after wasting billions of dollars - each! Two are continuing, with continued extensions to budget and timeframe - each of which was at least triple the original promises the last time I checked. For projects started in the USA in the last 30 years, zero have produced a watt of power.
Europe hasn't had any outright abandoned projects, but they're seeing the same schedule and budget screwups. It's harder to extract real costs as the French government is absorbing a fair amount of the overruns. Finland actually got their (French built) reactor online - briefly. They had to shut it down for repairs within a couple of months. Even without the repair issue - we're still talking about being at least 3x the promised timeframe and at least 3x the promised cost. Others are doing no better.
I'd support nuclear if there was any Western company who could demonstrate they could build one remotely close to on time or on budget. The only hope I have right now are the "small modular" upstarts. NuScale and such - maybe they can figure out how to keep to budget and schedule.
Solar can be on the grid months after construction starts. Wind can be on the grid in under a year after construction starts. We don't have a decade+ to wait for nuclear to figure it out.
Public opinion is the main barrier to Nuclear. We could do it if we wanted.
This is not the 1970s. Projects in the USA were favored by the local populace, and I believe the ones in Europe as well. Construction started. Westinghouse and the French both screwed up on execution. Massively.
I suggest reviewing the projects already under development. Here's a starter from ERCOT: https://www.ercot.com/misdownload/servlets/mirDownload?doclookupId=868860006
Uh, one thing that battery folks often get very wrong is the distinction between GW and GWh.
Good thing this wasn't directed at me, since I did not get that wrong and have not done so for years.
-
so I have a quibble with this. So - there is an issue, and people have various ideas on addressing the issue, and then someone does something towards a solution idea they had.
And then someone else just criticizes it. Are you not free to go off and do your own "better idea"? Make that happen?
Two responses here.
1) I don't have the resources that Elon Musk does, and I never ever will. He lucked out in the game of life and I'm doing my best to "make it happen" with what I've got. But to your point: I entered the job field that applies my skills to best make it happen. I am not just squabbling, I'm actively trying to make it happen. I'm criticizing because it is so important to me, not because I dislike it. It's the same as me worrying more about my brother than a random stranger. I have joined volunteer organizations that I think are on the right track (Citizen's Climate Lobby), I work it in my daily life, I vote it... I'm literally living it...
2) Responses like this make it pretty darn tough:
maybe do nuclear on the moon?
Out of curiosity, why so anti-nuclear? What is your particular reason?
Public opinion is the main barrier to Nuclear. We could do it if we wanted.
Here is your quote:
Guess how many people have died from nuclear? Chernobyl was ~45 people during the event, then another 4-5000 from cancer afterwards. That's peanuts.
as I said - you be the peanut!
I wrote out some of my reasoning, but I deleted. Why does it matter? Why don't I have the right, the choice to not want it, not want it around me, and pay for other power sources?
-
But I am not arguing that they will necessarily succeed at this, just that it is already part of the company, and they do have a good amount of focus in it.
the point was a poster said they are way over vlaued, but if they "become" an energy company then it's different! No, they are already doing it.
If people want to put in their bets that tesla is going to soar or slide or fall, hey - all fair, all good.
And if you wanna say - who knows what's going to happend with that maniac musk at the helm - could go anywhere. Also fair. And - a pretty good point!
But don't go making wildly definitive statements, and then subltly try to slide in a disclaimer that is already baked into their business plan. Because if tesla sinks - energy and all - then they go crowing I was right! And if tesla soars and someone says - you were wrong - and then no....look at this tiny sentence I squeazed in there so that if they do do energy piece than I'm not wrong.
I'm just calling bullshit on that. You want to make bold statements - have at it. But if you are looking to crow when you are right you better suck it up when you are wrong.
Ackchyually... I said that if the business model changes and they become more of an energy company...
so you have no real prediction on their future success? I just want to be clear on that.
-
so I have a quibble with this. So - there is an issue, and people have various ideas on addressing the issue, and then someone does something towards a solution idea they had.
And then someone else just criticizes it. Are you not free to go off and do your own "better idea"? Make that happen?
Two responses here.
1) I don't have the resources that Elon Musk does, and I never ever will. He lucked out in the game of life and I'm doing my best to "make it happen" with what I've got.
I totally get that, but that means he gets to do what he wants with his companies. One thing you can't fault him on it have a vision of what he wants to do. Someone saying from the sidelines - Hey - this might be a better method! After you've been working on your vision for 10 years? I get the frustration if you see a clearly better path, but asking someone else to change their vision and methods is a really high expectation.
But I certainly wish you well with whatever methods you are trying to put through! Except nuclear..... ;)
-
All modern giga-scale nuclear build attempts in the USA and Europe have been project management failures. 4 AP1000 reactors in the USA, all of them massively blew their budgets and timeframes. Two were abandoned after wasting billions of dollars - each! Two are continuing, with continued extensions to budget and timeframe - each of which was at least triple the original promises the last time I checked. For projects started in the USA in the last 30 years, zero have produced a watt of power.
Yes, keep up here. I've already said as much. They were over budget entirely because they got dragged out for so long from public pushback. They are held to way higher safety standards than any other energy source because of public fear; no one really pushes back against a gas plant even though it's emitting way more pollutants. The primary factor that increases cost of any building project is time on site. You can't throttle the build of such projects while simultaneously say they're not feasible. It's like kicking your dog and then complaining that they're aggressive. Well, yeah, of course they are.
China proves that they can be built fast and well. That is all. You said they couldn't. They can.
I wrote out some of my reasoning, but I deleted. Why does it matter? Why don't I have the right, the choice to not want it, not want it around me, and pay for other power sources?
It matters because I would like to see why your choices are what they are so that I'm not just making assumptions about your stance. Nuclear is an awesome energy source. Most people are dead wrong about many things nuclear. It is literally the safest grid-level energy source (solar is safer, but is useless without a backup/baseline energy source currently) and has the track record to prove it. It currently powers 19%! of the US grid. It's amazing, and people watch one Netflix documentary and all of these psychological biases kick in and think it's some uncontainable mystery energy.
I will be the peanut. It's safer to work in a nuclear plant than a coal or gas one. And we're not even close to having solar ready as a primary source. It's safer than being in a lithium mine to get all of these grid batteries out. I will/do live what I preach. When I lived in Chicago surrounded by nuclear plants I spent weekends in Palos Park which is a huge area with of a decommissioned reactor. It's quite safe... morose than people think. We have one of the best nuclear regulatory commissions in the world (the US NRC). Our team was sent to Fukashima after their disaster (which, mind you, still only had 2,000 deaths, mainly workers, and is far safer than driving in a car every day). Mind you, our plants would never be build like Fukashima- if you read up on these incidents they are quite the series of preventable events, and ultimately their impact is low except in the media world where a nuclear incident makes great headlines. I would rather do that than work on windmills (statistically less safe per unit of energy produced). It's the best thing we've got. This isn't unlike the MMM forum; trusting the numbers. Put away savings in index funds until you can live on 4%. It doesn't seem like it would work at first glance, but if you trust the numbers you can be pretty darn sure that it can.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
I totally get that, but that means he gets to do what he wants with his companies.
Well, I agree with that, but you're missing the point. I was responding to your insinuation that I should just make my vision a reality like Elon has. It's no different than telling me to just win the lottery if I want to become rich. I have about a 10 in 7 billion chance of doing that. Thanks for the encouragement! I'm doing what I can with what I have... I consider myself extremely lucky to be where I'm at with the resources I grew up with, and it occurs to me regularly that there are hundreds of thousands of potentially smarter and more motivate people than me who just happen to be born in the wrong country. But it irks me when people just assume that Elon somehow is above humility. He didn't chose his brain or his parents or the era that he grew up in... like no one else did.
I'll bow out of this thread. I'm taking it too personally and I don't think that I have the chance of changing anyone's mind (who does on the internet anyway?). All I want to say is that you should consider nuclear on your own time rather than what you've been told. It's probably a much different picture than you imagine. How do you think all of the large ships and submarines in the military get around?
-
I think 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.
There is a large amount of errors in your posts, especially in this one, both in quantity and magnitude. The moment you started to compare companies by comparing their stock prices, most people stopped listening to your arguments. It seems you're shooting yourself in your foot here. The more you talk, the more you reveal how much you don't know.
-
All modern giga-scale nuclear build attempts in the USA and Europe have been project management failures. 4 AP1000 reactors in the USA, all of them massively blew their budgets and timeframes. Two were abandoned after wasting billions of dollars - each! Two are continuing, with continued extensions to budget and timeframe - each of which was at least triple the original promises the last time I checked. For projects started in the USA in the last 30 years, zero have produced a watt of power.
Yes, keep up here. I've already said as much. They were over budget entirely because they got dragged out for so long from public pushback. They are held to way higher safety standards than any other energy source because of public fear; no one really pushes back against a gas plant even though it's emitting way more pollutants. The primary factor that increases cost of any building project is time on site. You can't throttle the build of such projects while simultaneously say they're not feasible. It's like kicking your dog and then complaining that they're aggressive. Well, yeah, of course they are.
China proves that they can be built fast and well. That is all. You said they couldn't. They can.
I wrote out some of my reasoning, but I deleted. Why does it matter? Why don't I have the right, the choice to not want it, not want it around me, and pay for other power sources?
It matters because I would like to see why your choices are what they are so that I'm not just making assumptions about your stance. Nuclear is an awesome energy source. Most people are dead wrong about many things nuclear. It is literally the safest grid-level energy source (solar is safer, but is useless without a backup/baseline energy source currently) and has the track record to prove it. It currently powers 19%! of the US grid. It's amazing, and people watch one Netflix documentary and all of these psychological biases kick in and think it's some uncontainable mystery energy.
I will be the peanut. It's safer to work in a nuclear plant than a coal or gas one. And we're not even close to having solar ready as a primary source. It's safer than being in a lithium mine to get all of these grid batteries out. I will/do live what I preach. When I lived in Chicago surrounded by nuclear plants I spent weekends in Palos Park which is a huge area with of a decommissioned reactor. It's quite safe... morose than people think. We have one of the best nuclear regulatory commissions in the world (the US NRC). Our team was sent to Fukashima after their disaster (which, mind you, still only had 2,000 deaths, mainly workers, and is far safer than driving in a car every day). Mind you, our plants would never be build like Fukashima- if you read up on these incidents they are quite the series of preventable events, and ultimately their impact is low except in the media world where a nuclear incident makes great headlines. I would rather do that than work on windmills (statistically less safe per unit of energy produced). It's the best thing we've got. This isn't unlike the MMM forum; trusting the numbers. Put away savings in index funds until you can live on 4%. It doesn't seem like it would work at first glance, but if you trust the numbers you can be pretty darn sure that it can.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
I totally get that, but that means he gets to do what he wants with his companies.
Well, I agree with that, but you're missing the point. I was responding to your insinuation that I should just make my vision a reality like Elon has. It's no different than telling me to just win the lottery if I want to become rich. I have about a 10 in 7 billion chance of doing that. Thanks for the encouragement! I'm doing what I can with what I have... I consider myself extremely lucky to be where I'm at with the resources I grew up with, and it occurs to me regularly that there are hundreds of thousands of potentially smarter and more motivate people than me who just happen to be born in the wrong country. But it irks me when people just assume that Elon somehow is above humility. He didn't chose his brain or his parents or the era that he grew up in... like no one else did.
I'll bow out of this thread. I'm taking it too personally and I don't think that I have the chance of changing anyone's mind (who does on the internet anyway?). All I want to say is that you should consider nuclear on your own time rather than what you've been told. It's probably a much different picture than you imagine. How do you think all of the large ships and submarines in the military get around?
I think elon is a first class asshole, if that helps at all. I am invested in tesla, and his personality issues do give me frequent pause. It is a tough situation for me to see what an ass and how stupid he can be, in an ongoing manner.
One aspect of nuclear that has me in the no category is the history (not confined to nuclear at all!) for dangerous wastes to affect health and of corporate and political corruption whereby when the SHTF coverups and denials are top priorities rather than the safety of people. continuing profits, without accountability for any of the elites, is the soup du jour.
You identify nuclear as the way to go, and just want to counter objections rather than to understand that I don't want nuclear power, and I don't want a nuclear plant near me, I do not trust companies nor government to protect me, to protect others, and I'm willing to pay more for alternatives. I take that as my right. To make these decisions for myself, for my community. I reject nuclear power so that I am not fostering those issues for other communities outside my own.
Your notes here are also a bit concerning to me.
Our team was sent to Fukashima after their disaster (which, mind you, still only had 2,000 deaths, mainly workers, and is far safer than driving in a car every day).
I find this so callous. only 2000 people. 2000 families ripped apart and never whole again. When I think of these things, I don't think about 2000 people and less than driving a car. I think of their loved ones. I think of their agony dying from a completely preventable cancer (can I please go out quickly in a car accident instead?), their regrets as they shrivel away, their unlived rest of their lives that were stolen from them. I think if it was my family torn apart and never whole again. I think if I watched my child whither away as they succumbed to cancer.
-
Our team was sent to Fukashima after their disaster (which, mind you, still only had 2,000 deaths, mainly workers, and is far safer than driving in a car every day).
I find this so callous. only 2000 people. 2000 families ripped apart and never whole again. When I think of these things, I don't think about 2000 people and less than driving a car. I think of their loved ones. I think of their agony dying from a completely preventable cancer (can I please go out quickly in a car accident instead?), their regrets as they shrivel away, their unlived rest of their lives that were stolen from them. I think if it was my family torn apart and never whole again. I think if I watched my child whither away as they succumbed to cancer.
JFC, what the hell?!!! I'm talking about preventing as many deaths as possible. How you turned that around to think I don't care about individuals is just insane. You better turn your electricity off right now because all of the gas and coal that you're using is killing more people per kWh than nuclear does. Seriously, think about all of the oil and gas workers... think of the poor families living near coal plants with higher levels of cancer because of the radiation given off of them (seriously). Look at those numbers on that link from before. Those are orders of magnitude more people dying compared to nuclear... and you don't care about them! Think about all the families losing loved ones from nuclear, except back at you x100.
This is incredibly insulting to me... you think I don't care?! It made months of international news for "only" (yes "only") 2,000 deaths. That's not no one, but for one incident in the last 10 years globally, it's so few people... It's a morbid subject, but it's the reality of the world. Things you do have effects. Ignoring those doesn't make them not exist, it's better to recognize them so that you can minimize them.
I can see this is now beyond a discussion I can have. I've been told that I don't care about people and that I am being fed lines by the oil and gas industry... it's quite the affront and the discussion isn't coming from a good faith rational place. It's quite deceptive and emotive.
-
Our team was sent to Fukashima after their disaster (which, mind you, still only had 2,000 deaths, mainly workers, and is far safer than driving in a car every day).
I find this so callous. only 2000 people. 2000 families ripped apart and never whole again. When I think of these things, I don't think about 2000 people and less than driving a car. I think of their loved ones. I think of their agony dying from a completely preventable cancer (can I please go out quickly in a car accident instead?), their regrets as they shrivel away, their unlived rest of their lives that were stolen from them. I think if it was my family torn apart and never whole again. I think if I watched my child whither away as they succumbed to cancer.
JFC, what the hell?!!! I'm talking about preventing as many deaths as possible. How you turned that around to think I don't care about individuals is just insane. You better turn your electricity off right now because all of the gas and coal that you're using is killing more people per kWh than nuclear does. Seriously, think about all of the oil and gas workers... think of the poor families living near coal plants with higher levels of cancer because of the radiation given off of them (seriously). Look at those numbers on that link from before. Those are orders of magnitude more people dying compared to nuclear... and you don't care about them! Think about all the families losing loved ones from nuclear, except back at you x100.
This is incredibly insulting to me... you think I don't care?! It made months of international news for "only" (yes "only") 2,000 deaths. That's not no one, but for one incident in the last 10 years globally, it's so few people... It's a morbid subject, but it's the reality of the world. Things you do have effects. Ignoring those doesn't make them not exist, it's better to recognize them so that you can minimize them.
I can see this is now beyond a discussion I can have. I've been told that I don't care about people and that I am being fed lines by the oil and gas industry... it's quite the affront and the discussion isn't coming from a good faith rational place. It's quite deceptive and emotive.
how do you determine that? Because people don't agree with you? What do you expect when you say - oh a nuclear plant accident - only 2000 died. 4-5000 died from chernobyl and you call that peanuts.
In turn, you're assuming a lot about me and my energy consumption that isn't true. And I'm not calling anyone's death peanuts.
-
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.
-
Anytime the deaths come in a larger group perspectives often get skewed. Kill 'em one or two at a time and it doesn’t matter what the total is.
but you could couch your observation in x deaths here y(x) deaths from there, rather than call x peanuts.
-
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.
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.
They are held to way higher safety standards than any other energy source because of public fear
Gosh 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.
Seriously, the safety requirements were well known before they made their bids and estimates.
Again, massive project management failure.
China proves that they can be built fast and well. That is all. You said they couldn't. They can.
You are seriously misconstruing what I wrote. I suggest reading it again. Can China build nuclear plants fast in China with questionable safety and quality? Sure.
If you think that Chinese nuclear builds to Chinese standards can be built in the USA or Europe, you're going to need to provide proof. Again.
-
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 demand
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 demand
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.
I expect they have higher costs when making cars in the USA.
-
I have never actually thought about what a car I was going to buy cost in another country - particular one with so different an economic philosophy as china.
same with houses, clothes, shoes, refridgerators....
-
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 demand
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.
I expect they have higher costs when making cars in the USA.
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.
-
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/)
-
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.
-
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.
Expensive way to do it, especially if it becomes an 8kun-lite.
-
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).
Not sure about how it is now, but read some years ago that the two companies with the highest margins in the car bizz were Tesla and Porsche. Most manufactureres have pretty crappy margins on new cars, but the business idea is to recapture some of that during the car's lifetime via compulsory services and the non-warranty repair jobs that eventually show up.
Porsche has allegedly for a long time had a strategy of scarcity, they deliberately choose not to fully meet demand to keep prices high and also maintain a good secondary market value for the collectors (of which there are quite a few) and for customers wating to trade their Porsche for a new model.
-
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 demand
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.
I expect they have higher costs when making cars in the USA.
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.
Have you checked iPhone prices in China and India?
How much is Starbucks charging for a cup of coffee in China?
Is Colgate toothpaste sold at a constant price around the world?
Do you think all these companies are taking their US and international customers for a ride?
Do you know the factors that go into pricing a product?
You don't have to like Elon Musk but your biased comments are not useful at all.
-
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.
-
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.
Many of Europe's sales are from the Shanghai plant. Most of the US's sales are from the Fresno, Cali plant.
It's not surprising at all that Tesla cars can be manufactured more cheaply in China vs the US.
-
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).
-
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/)
-
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).
You should always preface this with "In the US." BYD stopped selling pure ICE cars this year and is outselling (BEV+PEHV) Tesla in China. It will probably top Tesla in BEVs worldwide next quarter, if not this quarter (it sold 95k BEVs in September alone). It will start selling in India next year.
The advantage of a favored Chinese company is that the government has and will provide massive subsidies to ensure its success.
The competition is here but it's not in the US or Europe.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
Tesla's market cap would indicate they sell their cars for 4X the margin of GM and Ford and are growing sales 50% YOY while Ford and GM have stagnate or declining sales.
-
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
Also worth noting that in addition to regaining the $7500 federal tax credit starting Jan 1, Tesla’s homemade batteries are going to qualify for massive subsidies under the IRA, which has strict made/sourced in America requirements that Tesla says they’ll meet. This is worth billions to Tesla and is an advantage they alone possess. Combined with their pricing power and continued price reductions via scaling (new factories ramping in Berlin and Austin) and improved battery cell efficiencies (see battery day presentation) and Tesla’s margins will only grow from here. Tesla can then choose to drop prices to compete with these cheaper models or offer a lower priced model. It's also worth noting that Nissan and Chevy are likely losing money on each EV they currently sale based on the relatively low volumes they’re producing. Since they don’t separate out their EV sales on their financial statements, these loses are concealed by their ICE sales. As their ICE sales decline expect a very rough transition and years of unprofitability. It took Tesla a decade to become profitable and that’s without the drag of legacy auto manufacturing, unions, entrenched culture, and legacy operational debt.
-
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
Vaporware? What the heck are you talking about? Tesla is going to produce around 1.5 million EVs this year. Nissan has been selling the LEAF here in the US for a decade now and has yet to sell 200,000 LEAFs total! If anyone is deploying vaporware, it's GM and to a lesser degree Ford. They keep talking about how many EV models they’ll have by 20XX, and the date keeps getting pushed back. These companies are expensive airing Super Bowl commercials for EVs you can’t buy because it doesn’t actually exist yet. That’s vaporware!
Do not mistake Musk’s overly ambitious timelines for failure to deliver. The first batch of assembly line semi trucks will be delivered to Pepsi on Dec 1. Cybertruck deliveries out of Austin will start early Q1. Launching new lines is expensive and reduces profitability in the short run. When Tesla is selling every vehicle they make before its made, there’s really little incentive to rush out new product lines. They are launching the Cybertruck and Semi now because their battery supply is growing to the point where it can support new vehicle lines.
-
More vaporware
https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/yeni5w/elons_boring_tunnel/
"At the time, it seemed that Musk had dished out the Hyperloop proposal just to make the public and legislators rethink the high-speed train. He didn’t actually intend to build the thing. It was more that he wanted to show people that more creative ideas were out there for things that might actually solve problems and push the state forward. With any luck, the high-speed rail would be canceled. Musk said as much to me [Ashlee Vance] during a series of e-mails and phone calls leading up to the announcement. “Down the road, I might fund or advise on a Hyperloop project, but right now I can’t take my eye off the ball at either SpaceX or Tesla,” he wrote."
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
My message wasn't targeting at you. I actually thought you were somewhat neutral. 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.
-
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).
-
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?
And what did the management say if a recession materializes, and many other things?
If the economy weakens, Tesla and many companies, not just car companies, will be pressured. No one is denying that.
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. This just won't happen. Tesla's market share will become smaller. That's just math. It doesn't mean the company or its stock price will shrink.
I don't really want argue with you. I love many Chinese products. The EVs made by the Chinese companies look very compelling and I wish they'll be imported to the United States but that's not gonna happen anytime soon now that we have IRA in place. I feel that you have a hidden agenda. Do you have positions in one of the Chinese car companies?
-
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.
Yea, because I'm definately going to trust forward looking statements from this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5V0vL3nnHY) guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7oZ-AQszEI).
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).
For sure. I'm not saying that Tesla is going to go bankrupt. I'm saying that their stock is overpriced. Not that I don't own any, ~1% of my portfolio is already TSLA from my index funds. I feel no need to hold more than that.
-
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.
Well, sort of. The thing is, I know lots of people who have been picking stocks for decades. Tesla is a great company. But if you're spending your time listening to earnings calls or what have you, you're probably costing yourself money. All the best investors are dead, right?
I think electric cars are great (I own one) but from an investing standpoint, I'm pretty uninterested in which companies end up making money on EVs. I'm invested in all of the ones you can invest in already (Tesla included), so whatever.
-W
-
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.
No, I haven't been saying that.*
Tesla's market share will become smaller. That's just math. It doesn't mean the company or its stock price will shrink.
Yes, their stock price (really, market cap) is destined to become smaller. They're worth more than all of the legacy car companies combined. They will never generate that kind of revenue nor sell that many cars. No government would allow them to become that kind of monopoly.
My contention is that Tesla is a BMW/Audi/Porsche competitor (which also sell SUVs/crossovers). They haven't made any progress to go down-market. Daimler Truck, the largest heavy duty truck company, is only valued at $22B. The robot is at least a decade away and far behind competitors. That leaves self-driving and Tesla is not unique in that R&D. There are at least 2 self-driving cab companies running around my city testing; at least one is hands-off with an employee simply watching.
I feel that you have a hidden agenda. Do you have positions in one of the Chinese car companies?
Probably in IEMG but it's not in the top 10 holdings. I also own Tesla in VTI.
Do you work for Tesla? Do you have Tesla RSUs or ESOs?
* I interpret your wording of "smaller" to mean producing fewer cars.
-
I'm just a public shareholder owning the common stocks. I have no affiliations with Tesla.
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.
-
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).
True. Market cap is determined by what Mr Market says.
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?
That's the rub, right? Their multiple might've made sense 2 years ago but does it make sense today? How many (car) sales can Tesla reach without saturating the premium market?
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.
Yeah but with "It's coming out anyday now" Musk, I'll believe it when it ships. I was going to write "I'll believe it when it's pre-order" but the cybertruck buyers know how that goes.
-
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.
I must have missed the part in quoted text above where it says the driver does’t have to pay attention or keep his/her hands on the wheel. Saying the car drives itself AND you need to be ready to take over at any time, are not incompatible or contradictory statements? It's not going anywhere. Its old news republished to spark FUD and dupe retail investors out of their shares. Any if you think Tesla should be charged then I assume Ford/Chevy should be as well for airing a commercial with a driver in a moving vehicle without his hands on the wheel? Or is your outrage and concern on this matter reserved for Tesla?
-
Meanwhile.....
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.
common Elon, stop farting around and get me my domestic assistance robot!
;P
-
Tesla ATV for kids recalled for violating safety standards
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/29/business/tesla-cyberquad-recall/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/29/business/tesla-cyberquad-recall/index.html)
One the one hand, this is a sign of the hubris involved with taking a software development approach to the design of physical vehicles. Really, nobody at Tesla looked up the legal requirements for an ATV product? How does that bode for their other products?
On the other hand, this is another example of Tesla vehicle owners suffering no depreciation after years of use. If I owned one of these, there's no freaking way I'd cooperate with the recall, because these were already collector's items and the government just made working models a lot rarer!!!
There's somebody on ebay selling one NIB for $3400 + $325 shipping. Probably a better deal than Tesla stock.
-
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.
Another year or two? GM has been dawdling on Bolt since before Model 3 came out.
Next year when GM is planning to make 70,000 Bolts (sedan+ EUV), Tesla is very likely to make well over 2,000,000 Model 3/Y.
-
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."
https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/stock-market-inflation-cpi-report/index.html
Not that musk would ever listen to anyone....but...these opinoins are out there.
Was talking with someone yesterday about musk being such a bad sport - actually banning people on twitter who take a comedy swipe at him.
And then pushing for people to vote republican...very hypocritical.
-
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.
-
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.
that is a very positive spin. I've been wanting to buy some more but hesitating.
My only concern on the company is elon turning potential buyers in 'never tesla' people. Not sure how that will play out over time.
-
Legit concern for sure. Hard to say and hard to model. I don’t know the answer. I, personally, know someone who bought a Volvo EV because of not liking Elon. So the effect is definitely not zero, but there are many tailwinds behind the company including tax credits for individuals in 2023 and corporate credits for manufacturing batteries in the USA. 2023 would definitely be a bellwether in the United States if they couldn’t sell production. That would change my opinion for sure.
Don’t do anything on my spin. My numbers are mine and I could be very wrong. Only managing my own money.
-
thank, still considering it. As you say - price is attractive and things are about to happen.....alledgedly!
-
tesla trading lower on musk potentially moving aside as CEO...
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. ...
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 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 saw some fleeting headline - can't recall - that mentioned tesla was getting into value stock category.
Still tempted to get more, still worried about the growning never tesla crowd. Still thinking about.
-
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
Haha, possible I guess. Twitter with the #RIPTwitter went into wild hysteria over the weekend about it shutting down imminently. The site is still working. It's only been a few weeks since the change. It's just a crazy focus of the media right now. Every move. So that hysteria is usually way over blown.
What's more likely is that Twitter continues to run on <1,000 employees instead of 7,500. It's pretty standard practice in business turnaround for shock cutting. It's hard to cut too much. Corporate Turnaround Artistry is a great book on the practice. What's really interesting is the possibility of Twitter features actually improving over the next few months and years with DAU growth. That brings a lot of op ex efficiencies of other major software corporations under scrutiny like Meta and Google.
As a Tesla investor, it's been a very shitty year with Twitter. As CEO, Musk has not represented the interests of shareholders of Tesla. If he wasn't CEO, fine, but that's the job. The Tesla board is MIA over it so best case scenario is Twitter begins to shape into the product he's envisioning and he hires another CEO to run it.
-
Oh, it's not twitter *running* or not that is the issue. It's twitter setting all of Elon's money on fire as advertisers flee and people refuse to pay for subscriptions. That process could take years and years, of course. Or not happen at all.
-W
-
Yeah, I’d bet on not at all. Twitter isn’t really that big. No real danger of exhausting Elons wealth. $1.2 billion in total spend per quarter before losing ~6,500 employees and other unknown cost cutting. Advertisers are being cautious but if the DAU grows and he hires another CEO for the daily after the turnaround is done, they’ll come back. They want eyeballs.
We know Elon understands online payments from PayPal. That will definitely be a product. We assume based on comments they will start a TikTok/YouTube//Reels product. So there’s lots of potential in the business but he could burn it I guess. If it crashes and burns it won’t be material to his wealth. Tesla and Spacex are growing too fast.
-
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
He does have a visionary dimension that has been valuable/invaluable to tesla, but his dislikeability at this point is damaging the brand. I don't know where the best interests of tesla lie at this point. I guess I'm just along for the ride and see where it takes us.
I still plan for tesla to be my next vehicle purchase. But not sure when that will be.
-
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
-
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
This, all I want is the electric equivalent of a 1980s Corolla, but somehow asking for too little is asking too much. Instead, everything electric that is coming out is closer to the equivalent of a Mercedes S Class that was used as a getaway vehicle after stealing all the iPads from a Best Buy.
-
I think the iphone is a good analogy. It was way too pricy and luxury and full of nonessential features for most people to consider.....until it became standard.
-
I was eyeballing those values yesterday - but got distracted! Up nearly 8% today....
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
FSD Beta is now open to anyone who has paid for it in NA. So likely ~$1 billion of deferred revenue recognized this quarter. Big day.
I'm only really getting struggles now in big parking lots (V11 is supposed to improve. Parking lots still use an old software.) and streets with tight turns into steep declines. IMO, it would work really well in most areas of the US that are flat right now. Pittsburgh is the kind of city that would really put it through its paces. But where I live, it pretty much takes me everywhere now. Reduces cognitive load the same way autopilot does on the highway. I can see ahead where it'll likely struggle and focus accordingly.
Estimated take rate for FSD is around 10-20%. I would assume 20% on V11 for sure because it’s parking lot to parking lot. 500,000 units in NA sold x .20 x $15k is $1.5 billion in bottom line increase in 2023. It’s hard to know how much of the total was always being deferred due to price increases. But $1.5B+ we can model well now to the bottom line in 2023 is awesome!
*I mistakenly said every quarter. 500k units sold or more in NA in 2023. Probably more but I’ll go with that.
-
I just bought 10 shares. :). It's my only investment outside of my normal AA of index funds/bonds/cash. I may consider increasing my position to around 5% of investable assets over time.
-
The spring is being wound tight.
Agreed
-
The spring is being wound tight.
Agreed
Can someone translate this for me? Do you mean the momentum is growing under the surface and will pop soon?
-
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.
-
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. On the contrary sales continue to set records. It’s true wait times have shortened in China, but that’s to be expected when you rapidly increase production from Shanghai. Also, wait times fluctuate depending on wether Tesla is deploying Shanghai production in-country or exporting, which happens in waves causing wait times to fluctuate.
I’m not saying there’s no chance demand is softening in China, but I’ve seen no actual proof of reduced deliveries, only fear-mongering based on a small price reduction and reduced wait times.
Since Shanghai makes cars for export as well as for the domestic market, there is room to increase imports to SE Asia, Europe and Australia from Shanghai to take up any slack. In fact Shanghai is meant to be an export hub because it's cheaper to manufacturer in China and the vehicles fetch a higher price in other markets. Exporting production actually increases Tesla’s margins and profit.
Given Tesla’s automotive margin is around 30% they can afford to offer a small price reduction to increase demand in order to meet increased production volume in China.
Tesla will sell every vehicle they make in 2023 and total production will come in at 2 million vehicles or more. 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.
As for the Semi, once fleet managers run the numbers on the Tesla semi and see what the cost to operate per mile is they’re going to be clamoring for the Tesla semi. Reduced fuel and maintenance cost, combined with drivetrain longevity are going to disrupt the commercial trucking industry even more than EVs are disrupting personal transportation. The truck drivers are going to move the instant torque and acceleration, particularly on inclines. The only reason Tesla has not prioritized the Semi is that the number of battery cells needed for a Semi can be more profitably be deployed in passenger cars. As Tesla battery supply increases the Semi is no longer battery cell constrained. This is a huge market that Tesla will move into as cell supply increases. That’s the limiting factor.
-
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?
I bought my first shares in 2013 and have only added over time since. So, I’m already loaded up. In the last few months, I’ve bought around 50 additional shares. While my confidence in the future of the company has never been higher, there is a limit to how much I’m willing to bet on one company.
I will also say that I FiRE’d in 2017. And, prior to Tesla, I had never invested more than a few thousand dollars in any single company. I only invested money I could afford to lose. After Tesla, my next biggest holding is VTI (excluding real estate). I have chosen not to rebalance in the face of substantial gains because selling winners too early is just as bad as panic selling when a stock goes down IMO.
I expect I will start to unwind my position sometime in the next 2-5 years, but will sell-off slowly over time as Tesla matures from a growth company into a value company.
-
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-high
Tesla Inc. China deliveries fell in October after reaching a record high in September, underscoring the automaker’s recent price cut to boost sales.
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.
(bolded)
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.
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.
-
I can’t tell what’s going on in China. Wish it was easier. Company guidance says there’s no demand problem there and production is accelerating. They’ll export what they can’t sell domestically anyway. Definitely something to watch.
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 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.
I thought they said during the latest earning call that Cybertruck production starts mid-year 2023 with production volume at end of 2023?
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.
-
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-high
Tesla Inc. China deliveries fell in October after reaching a record high in September, underscoring the automaker’s recent price cut to boost sales.
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.
(bolded)
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.
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 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. The “competition” can’t even get out of the starting gates.
-
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-high
Tesla Inc. China deliveries fell in October after reaching a record high in September, underscoring the automaker’s recent price cut to boost sales.
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.
(bolded)
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.
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!
-
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. ;-)
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).
That was the biggest gap between production and sales since Tesla opened its Shanghai Gigfactory in late 2019, CMBI data showed.
(bolded)
As for India, Tesla pulled out of the Indian market in May. India is a protectionist market that's hard to crack. Ask Walmart.
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.
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.
-
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.
Yeah, something is going on. A class 8 semi would be awesome but my guess would be a class 4-6, a la Renault's EV trucks for Coke. The problem with a class 8 semi is charging, making it really only useful for overnight trips between cities because of the immense power needed in such a short amount of time. Getting the needed electricity to a truck stop in the middle of Nevada isn't as easy as installing level 3 chargers for a sedan.
-
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.
-
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 in 2017 2019 2021 2022 2023 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.
-
Level 4 driving is coming in 2017 2019 2021 2022 2023 too. :) I'll believe a class 8 semi when I see it (which might well be this week.)
Haha, fair.
I don’t know the answer to long haul. Definitely not usable for that in 2023. The Semi truck line will have a max capacity of 50,000 units year so probably not even an issue until production is ramped. The network will just build out overtime like the Supercharger network. I imagine in 2030 it’ll be a pretty robust system.
Engineering explained did a good video on the Semi. At todays energy prices the Tesla Semi would save over $500,000 during the lifetime of the vehicle compared to diesel. That’s a deflationary product. The other benefit is, unlike diesel, electricity infrastructure can be purchased to reduced grid cost.
For FSD, I use BETA daily. Level 4 in 2023 is highly likely. I say certainty personally. I don’t have to intervene very often and improvements have been accelerating. Experiencing the past 8 months of improvement has been striking and now that over 300,000 cars have it, the data flywheel for neural net training will just go faster and faster. 10.69.3.1 is amazing. Version 11 is a big enhancement in December. Bright future here much quicker than most anticipate.
-
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?
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.
Investors are thinking Tesla is being conservative in their timing estimate? Tesla is kind of known for being the opposite... haha
-
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. ;-)
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).
That was the biggest gap between production and sales since Tesla opened its Shanghai Gigfactory in late 2019, CMBI data showed.
(bolded)
As for India, Tesla pulled out of the Indian market in May. India is a protectionist market that's hard to crack. Ask Walmart.
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.
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.
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.
BYD is not producing vehicles that even compete in the same market segments as Tesla. Regardless, the rapidly growing EV pie is more than big enough for BYD and Tesla to both be wildly successful and profitable going forward. BYD and Tesla aren't competing with each other as much as BYD and Tesla are competing against legacy ICE and winning.
Funny that you think Tesla is going to be hurt by a recession that may already be underway considering Tesla weathered the global supply change issues (chip shortage, etc.) better than any legacy competitors and are growing production when Ford, GM, etc. all have contracting sales numbers. A recession will negatively impact all car producers, but investors will find Tesla’s relative strength very appealing. A nearly debt-free Tesla that is self funding their growth with FCF and cash reserves and that has no need to borrow, is far better positioned in the event of recession than the legacy auto companies that have constricting sales, billions in debt, and shrinking revenue. How in the world are they going to fund a transition to EV during a recession?
-
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 in 2017 2019 2021 2022 2023 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.
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
...when he sees it.
-
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.
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.
BYD is not a pure EV startup. It is a legacy car manufacturer and switched over to only EVs this year.
Regardless, 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.
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.
BYD is not a pure EV startup. It is a legacy car manufacturer and switched over to only EVs this year.
Regardless, 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.
In related news Australia passes new EV incentives and Tesla announces plans to enter Thailand market.
-
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.
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.
BYD is not a pure EV startup. It is a legacy car manufacturer and switched over to only EVs this year.
Regardless, 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?
They both manufacture and sell EV cars in the world's largest car market. BYD isn't selling the Hongguang; it's selling what we consider to be normal looking cars like the Seal. See https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/BYD_Seal_image01.jpg.
Will Europe buy the Chinese made Seal or Dolphin? Shrug. But BYD is going to try and sell them there starting next year.
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.
The universe can't expand forever.
I am confused about your position though. You mention "same vehicle class" above. The Nissan Leaf or Chevy Bolt certainly aren't in the same class as even a Model 3. Are they competition against Tesla cars? Or only cars like the Audi Q4 etron and BMW i4?
-
I bought another 10 shares of TSLA this morning $179.50 I now own 20 shares, where I will likely stay for a bit.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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-high
Tesla Inc. China deliveries fell in October after reaching a record high in September, underscoring the automaker’s recent price cut to boost sales.
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.
(bolded)
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.
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!
LOL, just noticed this. I wonder is there is high Chia demand in China?
-
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.
Good post, spot on. As I see roughly half of the ICE incumbents failing without major government intervention, I think Tesla’s automotive market share will be closer to the 20% in your range. Of course, this doesn’t account for Tesla energy and solar revenue, Tesla insurance, supercharger network subscription service, commercial vehicle sales, or autopilot revenue.
-
Its time to boycott Elon Musk businesses.
#BoycottTwitter #BoycottTesla
-
Its time to boycott Elon Musk businesses.
#BoycottTwitter #BoycottTesla
Nah
-
Apologies to Bacchi, but it looks like you’re going to have to find some new FUD. China sales are robust through the first two months of Q4.
Are we believing in the Class 8 Tesla Semi yet?
https://insideevs.com/news/623752/fully-loaded-tesla-semi-completed-500mile-drive/
...a Tesla Semi completed a 500-mile drive weighing in at 81,000 lbs, which is almost 100% of its Gross Combination Weight (GCW) of 82,000 lbs (37,195 kg).
Keep in mind the 500 mile range equates to roughly 8 hours of driving time, at which point drivers are mandated to take a break. The semi can then recover 70% charge in 30 minutes.
Time to update the list.
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.
-
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.
Attack the argument rather than the person.
This includes making shit up about what I've posted.
-
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)
-
Its time to boycott Elon Musk businesses.
#BoycottTwitter #BoycottTesla
Ok, sure; I won't spend $85,000 on a Tesla. Tough decision, but we all have to make sacrifices.
-
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.
-
Yes I mean this year is strange, Tesla is putting up huge growth in revenue and profits plus having tons of added growth in pipeline (semi, Cyber truck, etc) and yet the stock continues to have huge negativity and tank.
Lots of people don't understand the company.
Look at Tesla and Amazon for example. Tesla is growing profit and revenue much faster but has a much lower PE valuation.
There is a lot of anti Tesla and anti Elon sentiment in the media, and I think its dragging down the stock.
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.
Another example:
When Tesla does some minor over the air software patch for a small number of vehicles, that's classified as a recall, you see lots of doom sounding headlines. Like a 50k car over the air recall for Tesla that has literally no cost involved gets more bad press than another company recalling many more cars that they need to pay to repair at a dealership.
-
I'm just jumping in this thread now, and haven't read many post before this. I do own a tiny number of Tesla shares, but bought them too high.
I think there's a compelling case to buy Tesla shares at their current price. For the quarter ended 9/30, they had ~50% YoY revenue growth and roughly doubled net income on a YoY basis.
They'll keep growing the top line at least 30-50%+ as they build out factories and finally start adding their new models. I haven't built out a detailed model or anything, but it's hard to imagine the bottom line growing at less than 50% for the next few years.
I think the shares are effectively on sale due to the "Elon Musk shitshow discount". Hopefully he gets fired soon enough and the price should rebound.
There will also be some Q4 weirdness with the new tax incentives and people delaying deliveries into 2023.
There certainly are some headwinds that I don't want to discount too much. China's economy is decelerating rapidly, and the new interest rate environment is going to crimp demand for expensive cars. They'll probably lose some of their pricing power over the next few years as the economy cools and EV competition really gets going. But I'll say that the growth prospects still look strong even under these conditions.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 suspect part of his equation is knowing that the Tesla brand was built on becoming an idol to the left. He realized that half the country wasn’t interested in Tesla products.
If he can become an idol to the right, the other half of the country would now consider a Tesla.
Maybe it will work and maybe it won’t. But I think there’s more customers to be gained than lost.
-
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
-
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
Right now, the non-Tesla companies are all racing to see who can build a quality EV that will be popular. And they're doing a good job. Ford, Kia and Hyandai have some very compelling models. It looks like the GM Ultium platform will be good as well, but it's too early to say for sure. Stellantis is a big question mark. The Japanese automakers are a big failure so far. Maybe they'll catch up, but I doubt it.
Focusing on Ford, Kia and Hyandai, they have good EV's, but are delivering tens of thousands a year. They will be scaling to low hundreds of thousands each by 2025, at best. Tesla should be in the ballpark of 1.5M in 2022 and probably 2M (ish) in 2023. The gap between these companies will narrow, but you need to look at the numbers to appreciate how much of a gap there is to start. It's also too early to figure out where gross margins will land until they start selling them at a much larger scale. Ford even mentioned that they're currently selling the Mach-E at a loss. This will change at scale, but it's a question mark on how much it will change and how fast.
Right now, the market is focused on compelling products and ability to scale. And this is the right metric to think about it today. But sometime in the back-half of this decade, the EV market is going to be fully saturated. More manufacturing capacity will come on line than the market will support. At this point, the market will become about who can make EV's most profitably. While this will impact all EV makers, I think this is where Tesla will come out ahead. Tesla has put a massive focus (to a fault I believe) in eliminating cost from the manufacturing process and from the upstream supply chain. I don't want to own Tesla stock when this time comes, but I'd rather own Tesla stock than any other automaker. This will be the inflection point that some car makers don't come back from.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
You attribute Tesla’s margins to branding and lack of competition, completely ignoring other possibilities. One, that Tesla simply offers a superior product. Two, Tesla has revolutionized the manufacturing process, which reduces the complexity and cost of the vehicles, and in doing so reduces the number of possible issues that can arise down the road. Just a few differentiators that provide Tesla owners with an added value proposition:
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.
-
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.
I never said they would all fail. I’ve said that roughly half are likely to fail based on current trajectory. Volkswagen was on the right path, but then fired CEO Geiss (sp?) and slowed or reversed course on EVs. Toyota and Honda are in big trouble after a hydrogen false start. Ford and GM are moving in the right direction, but are heavily debt laden and will need to cannibalize their ICE profit center at the same time they need to be investing billions into an EV/battery transition. Throw a recession on top and I’d say their chances are 50/50 at best barring another round of federal bailouts. Tesla struggled mightily to make the jump from prototypes to mass production and didn’t have to fight an entrenched ICE culture, unions, stranded ICE assets, ICE part suppliers, a reluctant dealership network, or billions in ICE business debt. The legacy autos would be better off starting from scratch in reality. Ford recognizes this problem, which is why they split their EV division off from their ICE division. They’re trying to create a firewall to shield the growing EV business from what will quickly become an anchor. How do you think Ford and GM shareholders are gonna feel when they’re told they’ll need to forgo dividends and stock price growth for 3-5 years while they plow every available dollar into an EV transition? Why would a shareholder stick around for 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.
They could all become profitable. Rivian will be first IMO. OEMs will have billions of assets stranded during the transition. It’s going to be really tough for them. Balance sheets have decades of long term liabilities associated with those assets that will still need to be paid.
10 years from now is unknowable but today Tesla has been through the growing pains already and has multi year head starts in many facets. That’s the main thing. Nothing is stopping the others. It’s just Tesla has passed the execution risk.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
The question I was answering was in reference to justifying and maintaining Tesla’s astounding margins going forward. I think it is clear that Tesla will maintain if not grow it’s margins in the near-term. The thread asks the question, Is Tesla a good investment? It is not necessary for Tesla to hold 50% market share to be a good investment. At 20% market share, Tesla will be wildly profitable. It’s hard for me to see a scenario where Tesla does not end up with 20% market share. This does not take into account other revenue streams like software, robots taxis, insurance, energy storage, solar, supercharger network subscription, etc.
Other manufacturers can and will follow where Tesla has led, but it will require a near total restructuring of their business models. Fewer part suppliers and new suppliers, battery sourcing (cells and raw materials), buy gigapress casting machines (costly and limited supply), get rid of dealerships and maintenance profit center (no more oil changes and radiator flushes), become much more software competent (think computers on wheels), etc.
The bears consistently underestimate the level of disruption Tesla is bringing to the market and the degree of difficulty legacy auto are facing in making this transition. I’m not saying its impossible, but Tesla’s lead is wide and currently growing. A new equilibrium will be reached between Tesla and the survivors eventually, but Tesla’s lead in technology, infrastructure and scale will take the better part of a decade to erase. In the meantime, Tesla will remain a great investment, which is the whole point!
-
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 (total lifetime sales) in the US.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
I think it's possible you could be right in some fashion in 2024 or 2025 but not 2023. Most of the cars in the links you posted aren't coming out in 2023 and those that do will have small production batches and not fully eligible for the new tax credits. Tesla is already working on their $25,000 value car platform to sit below the Model 3 and Y. So for the future, that's an incoming product scheduled for 2024 that these new cars will have to compete against as well.
What are the technological advantages other manufacturers eaten away at? As far as I know, Rivian has done the best job there and they still lack many software features Tesla do.
I think a lot of those cars will sell pretty well when they come out. But what's important here for valuation, is Margin. For margin and growth in financials, that's where they can't compete. I'm not saying they won't sell EVs. I think they will sell their EVs AND Tesla will sell all theirs as well.
-
Edmunds TCO says the cost of owning a Tesla Model 3 is in line with a BMW 5-series
I'd call that an extremely biased opinion by Edmunds.
Tesla Model 3 Rear Wheel Drive MSRP $46,900
BMW 530i(the cheapest rwd) MSRP $54,800
Tesla Model 3 Long Range(AWD) MSRP is $57,990
BMW 530i xDrive(the cheapest 5 series AWD) MSRP is $57,100
Add the following costs for BMW's:
- oil change
- the difference between premium gas cost and electricity cost
- 10k, 25k, etc mile checkups
- break pads
- repair costs after warranty expiration
Any way you look at it, Tesla Model 3 TCO is lower.
-
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.
Always enjoy your thoughtful and informed posts on tesla, btw.
One thing I'm wondering is where quality/longgevity may come into play. Tesla are very long lasting, or so I've heard. Are the other EVs like leaf also long lasting? How do you think that will that impact sales down the line? Resales?
-
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
-
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
We owned a 2013 LEAF until August when it was totaled by another driver running a red light (distracted). It was down to 60% battery capacity or 60 miles of range after 60,000 miles. New LEAF come with either 160 (S) or 240 (SV) miles of range and (hopefully) have slower degradation rates. Used LEAF prices have improved recently due to general tightness in auto supply chain and more people wanting to get into an EV. This was not the case pre-pandemic. As Walt says, the LEAF is great for a daily commuter or around town car, but most people will want or need to pair with an ICE vehicle. The battery thermal management is not as good as Tesla. Tesla uses cylindrical batteries compered to pouch battery for LEAF. LEAF base model does not come with a heat pump, which significantly impacts winter performance. There are ample stories of selling Teslas 2 and 3 years old for more than they paid for them.
-
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.
-
in the news...
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.
-
another tidbit is that musk said it will take them 3 years to fulfill all the cybertuck orders.....that seems crazy....
-
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?
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?
Of course the PE ratio will go down eventually. But they are doubling profit every year now, that's why the PE ratio is high. Its still a lower PE now than tech stocks like Amazon with much lower growth rates.
Tesla has a backlog of orders in the existing products, plus two new products ready to launch soon (semi and cybertruck). Both of which look to have high demand / large number of preorders.
Their constraint to healthy growth for the next few years is simply growing production, and they have 2 factories that are relatively new and not scaled up yet.
They will plateau eventually at some future point but have plenty of fairly straightforward growth they can achieve with just the existing and soon to launch products. That's without factoring in anything for robotics etc which could become a factor far down the line.
They also are a tech company in addition to a manufacturing company. They improve the product technology constantly and send over the air free updates and even optional paid upgrades to cars already on the road.
-
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.
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?
Buyers are fickle and like shiny new objects. A Model S that has been on sale for over a decade only receiving minor facelifts will not catch people's eye once the rest of the market has BEV offerings. They'll have to start competing on price (like Nissan or Dodge) instead of being a front runner.
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
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:
https://techcrunch.com/2021/12/10/ford-triple-production-capacity-electric-mustang-mach-e/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAM2RSlSsK71W9WvRrXxiHBDQnm6G9VdV2Uv2OMGkcwDhqpNPa6ly6SdZ6jOVMDXdqeZX78Zgwl8pPSb244B9-n_yfHaK9s8lzENGey-SCC_wpKHjiYWblRxDtUtJUyyfo3CD2fsNywQll0qiyqkCHTyvjwVZ2sXG6VXy3XIqNXS1
Chevy undercalled the volume on the Bolt as well so this is not just a Ford thing. The big 3 know how to build vehicles when the volume projections are correct.
-
To be fair, when this thread started, Tesla was $20 a share. I think we'd all agree it was a good investment back then!
I'd guess folks that were buying when it was 20 times that price won't end up doing great, but they probably won't lose their shirts either if they hold on long enough. I'd at least consider it at it's current price, if I were a stock-picking kind of guy.
-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.
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.
idk - so the cybertruck is actually designed to be used on mars. So - that is like super crazy. That is a scary amount of preplanning. Spacex will trade lithium for cybertrucks ;^D
-
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?
hmmmm
-
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).
That was the biggest gap between production and sales since Tesla opened its Shanghai Gigfactory in late 2019, CMBI data showed.
(bolded)
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.
"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?
-
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).
That was the biggest gap between production and sales since Tesla opened its Shanghai Gigfactory in late 2019, CMBI data showed.
(bolded)
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.
"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?
The 71,704 is total sales, domestic (17,200) + export (54,504). While the 16,002 leftovers may be meant for export, they weren't sold yet.
I can't find CPCA/CMBI numbers but it looks like Shanghai produced 68,117 vehicles in January (July saw a factory upgrade and April saw a shutdown) and delivered 59,845 for about 12% excess inventory. Domestic (China) sales were 19k in January, above October's sales, but January sales may be affected by the Chinese New Year.
Tesla has cut prices in China and offered an insurance deal. There are also the Beijing protests to consider, which I'm sure doesn't help sales. Finally, Musk did state that China was in a "recession of sorts," indicating that lower China sales are a possibility.
-
maybe just quietly root for Tesla to succeed for all our sakes.
I can't root for Ford to succeed for all of our sake? Or Rivian? Or how about Cali Transit or Schwinn?
One version of Tesla "succeeding" is the opportunity cost... I'm going to derail the conversation here a bit again. This is my personal hesitancy to invest at any price, but since you introduced the subject of societal benefit I feel it appropriate. It is also not a hard stance for me, more meant as open dialogue. It is also made with the recognition that I am in an uphill battle here and that major EV success is better than major ICE status quo.
If we manage to replace all 1.4 billion gas vehicles with 1.4 billion (heavier) electric vehicles, we have traded one extremely damaging transit with a very damaging transit. The bottom line is that, in reality, the best way to reduce emissions and mining damage and infrastructure maintenance is to reduce our dependency on cars. In this case, one might say that really we should want Tesla, and all of the other car companies to fail. Mass transit should be the place to invest, along with other boring but important efficiency companies (such as home energy audits companies or city planners who can change zoning laws).
Much of Tesla's marketing is on their environmental impact. Many people work there because of this specifically and I do think that electrifying everything is the way forward. And they have done a great job with the marketing. But in the end, they're a company who's primary goal is to grow. That primary goal is in competition with many other more environmentally friendly options. As the quote goes "It Is impossible to get a person to understand something when their salary depends upon them not understanding it".
One big reason Tesla has succeeded is that they set out to make EVs cool... the emissions are basically a bonus. On a practical level, I definitely don't want to root against them, and realize that my ideal scenario needs to be paired to a realistic future. But holding their stock as part of an index fund is fine enough. There are other companies who I would much rather own individual stocks of because I believe in their vision more, but the pessimist in me is wary of their ability to overcome the momentum of hedonism ingrained in capitalism. If we were to bet which companies were to make more growth than others over the next 5-10 years, it's not really a hobby of mine (although discussing them sure seems to be, ha!)
After all, this is the MMM forum
-
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
------------------
-
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
------------------
uh, yeah, but who cares? What does my car being "cool" gain me? Why should I spend any resources in that?
Stranger's opinion? worthless
Friend's opinion? If they don't accept me for my car then not really friends then.. win-win
Once you're past age of ~22 most people realize how stupid it is to worry about this!
-
Prius Sales:
2005 107,155
2006 106,971
2007 181,221
2008 158,884
2009 150,831
2010 140,928
2011 136,464
2012 236,655
2013 234,228
2014 207,372
2015 184,794
2016 136,629
2017 108,661
2018 87,590
2019 69,718
2020 43,525
2021 59,010
2022 28,445
Plenty of hybrids out there now though. Seems like those in the market for an EV are looking at EVs and not traditional hybrids. Toyota bz4x EV is getting pretty bad reviews. IMO, Toyota is in one of the worst spots for major OEMs in this transition. Honda will use GMs platform (who would have thought that 20 years ago?).
Hyundai is crushing it, but the IRA was a hit to their plans.
-
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.
-
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.
I need a car in 1-3 months. Candidates are:
1) 2017 Chevy Volt, because under $20k, 50-60 miles all electric range for daily commute, $4,000 tax credit, plus $750 in my state, so about $15k net.
2) 2023 Chevy Bolt, because 27-31k, $3750 tax credit(maybe?), plus $750 state so about 25-28k net i.e. cheaper than the Prius, no gas, much lower maintenance, but have to deal with range and charging on occasional trips.
3) 2023 Prius Prime, but seems *worse* than the Volt(if maximum value/lowest cost to own is the criteria) since Prius has less electric range and double the cost. Better fuel economy on long trips but for most this would be seldom and not enough to make up for the better daily EV only range of the Volt.
I'm in the process of getting estimates for solar so this skews me towards electric
-
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...
You do you, but relative to the old one, it's quite aesthetically appealing to me.
Profiles in question. M3 has least amount of trunk space.
-
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.
1. Competitors like the Hyundai Ioniq 5 or the Volkswagen ID.4 reviews are so much better. Big influence on buyers.
2. The model's wheels were falling off at first and took months to resume production.
3. Range tests are lower than expected.
I think I would prefer one of the competitors just doing spec comparisons.
-
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!
-
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!
I figured might also be because it's a pontiac, and they were unreliable garbage? Seemed like a perfectly serviceable car otherwise though *shrug.
And they did actually sell 30k per year of them!
https://carsalesbase.com/us-pontiac-aztek/
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..
-
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.
Was it you who yesterday criticized telsa for not changing body shape? May have been someone else....
but now toyota trying to rip off the supposedly "dated" look.....so, kind of interesting!
-
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.
Scandium:
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
-
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!
-
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!
Yes, I said that in reverse! To my wife's embarrassment, I love functional things that often are considered ugly
-
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.
-
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..
-
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.
That is pretty hilarious about the coolant!
I'm kind of excited to see when in the quarterly earnings calls in 2023 the tailwinds pick up. Seems that Semi and cybertruck have been expenses with no income for the past few/many years, and those expenses will finally start to pay off and not drag the earnings on the cars. Seems likely that there would be a significant change in earnings as a result. I can't think that the renewed focus on developing the 25k car would be nearly as resource intensive as the dual development of the semi and cyber truck lines have been.
So hopefully they get to that 25k car all the quicker!
-
>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.
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)
-
>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 same way you get most important Tesla information - an offhanded tweet.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1598631136980131843
-
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.
-
>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 same way you get most important Tesla information - an offhanded tweet.
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.
-
>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 same way you get most important Tesla information - an offhanded tweet.
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.
Yea, there's a lot going on with this one. A lot of people are trying to push deliveries into next year for the tax credit. Others are likely cancelling because of the ongoing Elon shit-show. There's also others that cancel just because they've been waiting so long and found something else. Interest rates are impacting others. I don't think we'll be able to unpack what the cancellation impact is until early next year.
I suspect (but have no evidence) Tesla's been prioritizing fleet deliveries the last few months and are just getting around to some of their older retail orders from last spring.
If I were to place a bet, I'll say that their overall demand situation will be fine in the US for 2023, with some weirdness in Q4 2022 and maybe Q1. But we might finally see some price cuts if demand starts to soften. But this is a big difference from having unsold inventory.
China demand is what I'd watch. The Chinese economy is decelerating rapidly, and in the absence of data, negative anecdotes seem to be outpacing positive ones by a wide margin.
-
>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 same way you get most important Tesla information - an offhanded tweet.
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.
this is sounding pretty good, I nearly just bought one! lol....fiddling as rome burns....need to finish my work week and maybe will pull the trigger tomorrow....save my taxes for a solar system in 2023......
Maybe!
-
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?
-
...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.
Like so many commercial fleets, Penske has been doing pilot testing programs with other EV trucks for awhile now:
https://www.pensketruckleasing.com/full-service-leasing/leasing-services/electric-fleets/
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
Charging time only matters if the chargers exist, and they're in the right locations. So there obviously needs to be some rollout in infrastructure for this to catch on. That takes time and a lot of money, but it seems like we know how to solve that problem.
The other existing Class 8 battery trucks are all focused on short range so charging time isn't massively critical. They need to make it through their daily routes and home to charge overnight. Short range means smaller battery which reduces weight, cost, etc.
As it is, the Tesla Semi seems like a bit of an odd duck to me. It's got more range than needed for short haul, but it's not configured for long haul, and the infrastructure to support that doesn't exist (yet). With estimates of 27k lbs, it's going to be heavier than a standard ICE long haul truck, but with a short haul (day cab) configuration. So it's going to be WAY heavier than the day cab short haul trucks that it's directly competing with. For reference Freightliner's eCascadia with 230 miles of range weighs under 19k lbs with a single drive axle, and under 22k with 2 drive axles.
A 500 mile dual passenger truck with a sleeper would compete more with typical long haul tractors, but that added hardware would add even more weight to the cab (probably getting close to 30k lbs for the tractor) so again it seems like it could be at a potential disadvantage. Not sure if they're doing the day cab because the charging infrastructure isn't there yet for long haul, but if that's true, then why pay for all of that battery capacity? There were initial plans for a cheaper, shorter range option of the Tesla Semi. Was that discussed at all the other night? That seems like the one that might be better supported by Cost of Ownership math in the current world that we live in.
-
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.
Don’t think they’ll make a sleeper cab until V4 infrastructure is built out.
To be fair, I’m not a trucker or run a logistics company. 225,000 semis sold every year. The market will tell us.
-
As for the smaller version, they’ve been working with PepsiCo for some time now. They might have found the cost to manufacture variety at low volumes wasn’t worth it or 300 miles wasn’t that useful.
-
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?
I think we will know for the April earnings call. :)
-
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. This is a relatively small market, diesel included, in the US. Getting it wrong would be a disaster. I think it’s more likely they didn’t put too many resources into it to avoid a large sunk cost. Probably why hydrogen has more investment like you said.
I agree the caginess on the specs was worrisome. We know they want to scale to 50,000 units in 2024. We know they have way more orders than they can fill currently.
That orange company sounds awesome but this is a Tesla investor thread so the weight of information is obviously going to skew.
-
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/
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).
Worth noting that those Orange yard trucks never leave property so not really the same market as Tesla. Top speed on them is 25mph.
-
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.
-
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.
Always good to hear from a subject matter expert. I'm someone who knows very little about the topic, although I'm working with one company that's looking to electrify a local delivery fleet.
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?
-
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/
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).
Worth noting that those Orange yard trucks never leave property so not really the same market as Tesla. Top speed on them is 25mph.
I showed the Orange yard trucks to illustrate that there are existing EV options for some of this type of work. And that range can be optimized for specific jobs and duty cycles. Many people outside of the commercial sector may look at the Tesla Semi and think that it would be ideal for the jobs that trucks like the Orange do, but it's also excessive in the same way that a 400hp diesel engine would be excessive for that job. Fleet buyers increasingly want or need power that's optimized for their specific usage, so having a single 500 mile, BEV Day cab option may not be as disruptive as many people think.
-
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.
The only one I really shake my head at is hydrogen. Ballpark 3x the fueling cost of electricity while having an energy density 1/3 that of methane and no existing distribution or storage network of a scale useful for trucks.
If they can get over the cost hurdle somehow* (and there is a big enough niche of demand) we would likely be better off just using the Sabatier process to turn the hydrogen into methane and burn it in CNG trucks. Sure, there's some energy lost in the conversion - but it's in the same ballpark as the energy lost compressing hydrogen. Methane (ie, super clean natural gas) already has an existing national (global) distribution and storage network and even a decent truck fueling network in parts of the country.
*Advanced nuclear reactors or super cheap electrolysis units seem the most promising.
-
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.
-
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?
The shortest answer is that it depends. It depends on the regulations in a given area, the use of the vehicle in question, etc. I'd expect to have more options in the commercial sector than just the diesel that we've had for the last 100 years and the natural gas that we've had for the last 20 years. I expect the solutions to be more specialized for a given case/duty cycle than they have been for most of recent history.
To summarize the next 10-15 years I'll guess that:
- diesel remains the primary commercial fuel but will be increasingly complex and expensive with market share being eroded as a result.
- alternative fuels such as natural gas, gasoline, hydrogen, etc will expand their footprint as they're easier to meet increasingly tight emissions regulations and it's relatively easy to implement into existing vehicle platforms, fueling infrastructure, etc. Natural gas has been in use for a couple of decades now, and they'll continue to spread and evolve. Hydrogen ICEs are 3-5 years out but will be uncommon for a few years at least.
- batteries continue to gain popularity but it will be very market or job specific. Continuous heavy work such as heavy towing or farming/earth moving are likely to remain a point of difficulty unless weight comes way down
- hydrogen fuel cells have been the next big thing for decades, but I see them getting progressively more mature. They're currently in the working prototype phase for the most part, with a few unique cases generating revenue for their owners. They're still expensive and fueling infrastructure is almost non-existant which will take time to change. MAYBE they're more viable by 2040-ish, then taking several more years to gain meaningful market share.
-
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.
Don't forget that the about the easiest variant of any EV is one with a smaller battery. It was designed for the longest range they could manage, likely with the PR impact in mind.
Selling a version with a smaller battery and a shorter range could happen pretty fast as demand gets filled for long range versions.
My anecdotal evidence with a company that has a fleet of smaller delivery vans suggests there's a lot of pent-up demand for solutions like this. I'd expect something like this to expand the market for the next few years rather than steal share. Unless the economic environment starts to gut everyone's Capex budget.
-
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.
They're still doing the cheaper, 300mi version:
https://www.tesla.com/semi
Semi Specs
Fully Loaded at 82k lbs Gross Combination Weight
Mile Range
Approximately 300 or 500 miles
0-60 mph
20 seconds
Speed Up a 5% Grade
Highway speed limit
Powertrain
3 independent motors on rear axles
Energy Consumption
Less than 2 kWh per mile
Fast Charging
Up to 70% of range in 30 minutes
Fuel Savings (est.)
Up to $200,000 over 3 years
-
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.
-
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.
Agreed with your first paragraph, when I say “cost per mile over the lifetime of the vehicle” I was including the factors you list, such as downtime, maintenance, etc. Also agree BEVs should excel on most of those fronts, but fleet managers will want solid real world performance and not spec sheet numbers before jumping on board. But, assuming the Tesla Semi delivers, the paradigm shifts almost overnight. From that point forward, any fleet not using electric is at an immediate competitive disadvantage. It’s fascinating to get to watch this play out in front of us.
Good catch on the math mistake. Just to be clear, this is not my chart or I’d fix it.
-
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.
-
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.
That's always been a Reuters thing.
-
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?
More likely Tesla down from false report of Tesla Shanghai production being cut 20%. Not the first time Reuters has done something like this.
-
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,
-
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,
Thanks to you and @ColoradoTribe for the info!!
-
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).
-
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 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.
There’s is no factual basis to the rumor that Shanghai will reduce production 20% in the near term. Tesla has denied this is true. In the past Shanghai production has steadily increased. The only exceptions being COVID shut-downs or retooling the lines to further increase production. It’s FUD. Most FUD falls within the realm of the possible, it just lacks any factual grounding.
-
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: PE 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?
-
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?
I don't care enough to look at this specifically, but a lot of times these automated calculations get hung up by either using "adjusted" earnings or different versions of share count. Basing it on adjusted earnings is dumb. Differences in share count usually come down to accounting for options, warrants, or other authorized but un-issued shares. This can be material in the tech world, particularly when the CEO is compensated with huge stock awards on the condition of hitting certain milestones. At least I assume this is what's going on.
The PE is certainly high on a trailing basis, but keep in mind they've doubled their net income in the last year. And it's hard to see a scenario where they don't increase the top line by at least 25% in 2023, even with some level of demand slowdown. While I have no idea what the stock will do, I certainly wouldn't call it expensive at today's price.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
I don't know what the stock price is going to do next year, but it could take a hit like MustacheAndaHalf said. It doesn't really matter that much because I don't need the invested capital. If you are looking to sell stock for living on in 2023, probably not a good idea to hold next year's funds in investments with a looming recession. IMO, The long run earnings power of the business will cause the stock to ratchet way higher in the long run. That's what I'm interested in.
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.
-
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.
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?
My source for 33 fwd P/E is Morningstar. What is yours?
-
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
-
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
Their Forward P/E was over 100 in December 2021. Not today. That's the point. They're making a estimate of earnings for next 4 quarters. That's what Forward P/E is. And their estimate from 2021 for 2022 was crazy wrong.
I absolutely agree you should trust them more than me. But I don't trust them more than me. Also the point. Make your own earnings estimates if you're going to invest in a stock or find forecasted information someone else does that makes sense to you. As far as I know, Morningstar doesn't publish their forecasting models. How do you know how many vehicles sold they're using, gross margin, op ex? There's zero information to back up that number. i.e. it's insane to trust that number. Now regular P/E is easy. It's all published information. Forward P/E, nah.
-
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.
-
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
Most websites use stale data. The current PE with today's price is 178 / (.85+1.07+.76+1.05) = 48.
The forward PE is based on the estimated earnings and is anybody's guess. If Tesla continues to deliver strong revenue and earnings growth, it will continue to be rewarded with a PE higher than those of Ford and GM, especially when the last 2 have billions of debt. Even if a recession materializes, Tesla will still do better than F and GM.
We will have a turbulent market in the next 12 months but the short-term fluctuations really don't matter if you take a long term view.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Again, it comes down to people's willingness to pay massive margins to Tesla for a product that's not like any other.
A lot of fans of Tesla paid the extra money over the past decade and a half to send a signal about how environmentally forward-thinking they were. But now there are lots of ways to own an EV - hell, even Jeep and Hummer are making them. So these individuals are no longer limited to Tesla as a way to send that signal.
There were also a lot of Tesla fans who bought the cars because they wanted to contribute to the success of this scrappy environmentally-friendly startup run by a modern-day Thomas Edison (intentional burn) so that it wouldn't go out of business like AMC or Delorean. Now though, Tesla is becoming just another megacorp, with factories in China and Germany. Additionally, Musk's turn toward the alt-right, disclosures about his sexual ethics, and his new job as the god of Twitter make him look less like a world-saving genius and more like yet another tiresome 2020's narcissistic billionaire.
All the old reasons to pay a few thousand dollars more for a car seem to be fading. Of course, Tesla could become like Apple, and have fans willing to pay twice as much for a macbook compared to an asus, hp, dell, etc. but as with Apple this would have to be based on performance and quality. We'll see!
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.
-
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
-
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.
I think what "truck guys" want comes down to capability. A lot of the desire for trucks is to own a vehicle that is at least capable of doing work. The motivation behind that is varied of course. And we know that not all trucks are used in that way. But the more EVs that exist doing actual work, the more traditional "truck guys" you'll convert. Add some marketing about how much money it can save over an equivalent ICE, how it can increase your independence from Big Oil, and throw in a dash of patriotism (less impact from foreign countries' policies or whims of oil barons) and the recipe seems like it could work for the most part. I know that I read and hear quite a few "truck guys" that say they're open to and/or very interested in an EV truck or large SUV, provided it could do what their current ICE truck or large SUV is capable of.
Of course, you have to actually make those EVs exist too. They have to tow the camper to wherever, or plow deep snow all day, etc. They have to be used on construction sites, or have ladder racks for contractors, etc. Once the actual workers are driving big EVs, you'll get many of the cosplayer types to follow. I think the Lightning has some very smart features for contractor type work. And the fact that it looks like "a regular truck" has multiple benefits so it's a great start in that direction. But it's still critiqued for lack of towing range, etc by many and they're only just now trickling out into the real world.
The Cybertruck has tons of interest, and it's got lots of "Look at me, I'm a big boy in a big truck!" vibes, but if it's anything like what's been shown thus far it's also limited in the amount of work that it will be able to do. So many traditional "truck guys" are likely to see it as an expensive novelty crafted by tech bros for times when they want to pose as a "truck guy", and less like the "hard working everyman's trusty tool" that average "truck guys" are looking to buy into.
-
BYD Executive Vice President doesn’t view Tesla as a competitor, because its success means more people are learning about EVs. “Our competition, maybe our enemy, is the combustion-engine car.” (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-07/buffett-still-committed-to-byd-amid-selldown-byd-executive-says?sref=XGCNUIEk&leadSource=uverify%20wall)
-
Tesla cuts prices in China, again.
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.
China consumer EV subsidies end on the 31st. Unless they're renewed, it could lower demand for BEVs, particularly for the more expensive models.
-
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
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.
-
Tesla cuts prices in China, again.
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.
China consumer EV subsidies end on the 31st. Unless they're renewed, it could lower demand for BEVs, particularly for the more expensive models.
No doubts about it. Management overestimated China's domestic market here at the end of 2022. The discount was for inventory only so they did not export enough cars earlier in the quarter. TBF to management, the entire domestic market is soft for all manufacturers and not just Tesla. Total vehicle sales in China dropped 9.5% in November despite Tesla having a record month. These are macro problems, but TAM for EVs worldwide is still growing. So now can they adapt better to export timing with growing capacity of other facilities?
US marketshare for EVs hit 6% this year. Total EV marketshare globally is about 10%. If 2023 marketshare for EVs hits 15% that's 2 million additional EVs to be sold in 2023 and not many manufactures have the capacity or cell supply to fill it. US EV marketshare will ratchet much higher next year with the new tax credits and companies like Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, Polestar and Volvo don't have assembly in NA to qualify (currently).
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.
Telsa FSD Beta works 98% of the time. I know the areas I'll need to pay more attention. IMO, because of FSD Beta, it's already a much safer interface to fiddle with as opposed to buttons in any other car (without FSD Beta, you're right). My 2022 Hyundai Santa Fe has plenty of buttons and has similar issues using Apple Car play on screen, but it doesn't have FSD Beta to help around town with. It's not nearly as safe. I'm not an average consumer though and can afford higher end vehicles. My parents are nearing 70 and still do lots of road trips. I'm not going to hesitate to get them a Tesla with FSD when they let me. When they're 80, I'm going to demand it. FSD is going to be so important for elderly drivers.
In general, the kind of ability FSD Beta has today, in consumer vehicles, is unreal. You don't have to put directions in. You can basically use it like autopilot in towns and it'll just head straight, keeping you perfectly centered in lanes if you have a longer stretch like that, handling stop lights and signs. Or you can have it take you somewhere and take over if you have a complicated unprotected left turn or something. Just my anecdotal experience, FSD Beta is right now safer than not having it compared to what it's like to drive my Santa Fe. At the rate of improvement FSD had in 2022, it's really going to be a competitive advantage in 2023.
-
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.
And ignore anything which doesn't fit your preconceptions or claims.
I'm puzzled why you are even in this thread.
-
I think it’s fine to have opposing views in the thread. Most of the time, there’s just very few numbers used. If people like chpbstrd were really confident, they could short. Would probably incentivize research for better analysis anyways. Just to comment on some common arguments:
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.
2. Customers are willing to pay high margins. That’s a nonsensical comment. Customers don’t pay for a margin, they pay a price for a product based on all kinds of factors. But margin is determined by price and cost. Teslas operating leverage is growing as Texas ramps. Tesla will reduce the price of its vehicles in 2023 because they’ll cost less to produce: higher operating leverage and cooling inflation on raw materials. Margins won’t really shrink. They might actually improve as manufacturing enhancements like body castings coming to the Model 3 later in the year at Fremont.
3. Teslas are like any other EV. Well, 30 minutes comparing spec for spec is easy. It’s obvious Tesla vehicles have many differentiators in performance, infrastructure and tech for the price. EVs aren’t commodities. Consumers look at range, rate of charging, charging infrastructure, 0-60, infotainment, cargo volume, phone support, efficiency, number of seats, ADAS capabilities, ease of purchase, handling, availability, interior design, so many more, AND price.
I think Tesla is poised to thrive in a recession compared to other manufacturers. It has no debt, huge room to spur demand from either price or model configuration, and is one of the few with cars that qualify for the tax credits for individuals and battery manufacturers. It’s not talked about often, but Tesla will also get credits for manufacturing battery components in the US. I’m not sure but I think most other OEMs will cede those credits to partners like LG and CATL. Panasonic owns a lot of the lines for Teslas 2170 cells used but Tesla owns their own 4680 lines. And those credits will go to the bottom line.
https://www.foley.com/en/insights/publications/2022/10/ira-tax-credits-renewable-energy-component (https://www.foley.com/en/insights/publications/2022/10/ira-tax-credits-renewable-energy-component)
-
This was from mid day today, with tech stocks getting a bump after the recent CPI data was slightly better than expected. I thought it was curious.
Is TSLA simply being punished for Musk's outside interests? Is the market starting to view Tesla less like a tech company and more like a car company? Something else?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fj3kuKWWQAMrcPj?format=jpg&name=900x900)
-
Who knows, but I don't think it has anything to do with a revision to the mean to OEM averages. So far, Tesla has moved in macro ways very similarly to Amazon in 2022. Amazon actually has a PR department tho while the finance and news medias punch Tesla pretty hard at any opportunity because Elon is so visible.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjicMBXXoAAMQGv?format=png&name=900x900)
AMZN in red and TSLA in blue.
-
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!
-
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!
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.
-
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.
Thanks, good info! Will think about it, not sure how long it will take me to get the electrician installed version.
-
meanwhile....been picking up the odd share of tesla here and there.
To add to my collection.
-
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.
I stayed with 2023 for the context of my quote used. Global EV demand is about 12% right now. Up 55% compared to 2021. 15% in 2023 very likely and I think EV demand for 2025 will be 30% globally. That’s 24 million vehicles. Tesla can be 4 million of that based on their 50% growth targets. 17% net margin on 4 million units? Sounds like good growth to me. What would justify 50 p/e for you? But it’s only relevant for another month. Come end of Janurary, Q4 earnings will compress p/e into the 30s. Especially as the price keeps going down, haha.
-
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.
-
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 argument was, as I recall, that ICE vehicles were going away very soon (https://thedriven.io/2019/03/11/will-the-death-of-the-ice-vehicle-come-earlier-than-expected/), and legacy automakers are at least 10 years behind Tesla (https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/24/what-are-the-chances-one-or-more-legacy-automakers-will-fail/), therefore it's only a mater of time before legacy companies start failing, and TSLA would go to the moon! Admittedly, the most vocal proponents of this were Tesla fanbois on forums.
The Mach E comes to mind as an EV that compares very favorably to Tesla (https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a36847087/2021-ford-mustang-mach-e-vs-2020-tesla-model-y-compared/). 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. Besides, the entire auto industry is less about functionality and more about lifestyle and brand identity. A Toyota and Subaru aren't very different, people buy one over the other based mostly on marketing (suburban moms vs crunchy outdoorsy types). This is where Musk's recent antics with Twitter are going to hurt Tesla the most... Tesla is intimately connected with Musk, and his core demographic (wealthy coastal elites) are understandably squeamish about Musk. For many, the Mach E has all the range and performance they want, with a large network of dealerships to provide service, all without the Musk baggage.
-
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.
That would be awesome! And make me quite clever for waiting ;P
I took the 3750 rather than 7500 next year as a bird in hand situation. I wasn't sure about if my income would exceed the threadhold or not. Probably not, but this was a sure thing so took it. I think the roof and powerwall does not have income limits.....but maybe the charger is on the same page as the EVs?
-
The tax credit is 30% of the cost of charger and installation up to $1000. Doesn’t have an income limit like the cars.
-
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)
-
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)
-
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)
I'm comparing tech, not units sold. Regardless, Mach E production is ramping up and Ford is forecasting 270,000 units in 2023 (https://insideevs.com/news/624327/ford-mustang-mache-150000th/) (up from estimates of 200k made earlier in 2021). From the linked article:
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!
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!
-
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)
Thanks, good to know.
-
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!
hope you get there soon!!
-
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.
(https://i.ibb.co/dJ02D29/evcagr.png)
The hard thing with current supply numbers is most sites include PHEV with BEV. This is only BEV. Most of BYD sales right now are PHEV. I think that'll probably change.
-
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.
-
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."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/elon-abandoned-tesla-3rd-largest-individual-shareholder-calls-for-a-new-ceo/ar-AA15kxcl?cvid=e40a32c627044523a1fc2b4b867ae6a2
So we aren't the only ones thinking it!
With Elon banning Musk-critical journalist off twitter, his whole claim to "saving" free speech is completely out the window and he's lost any credibility he had there. Saving? He is actively stiffling it, and in a very egocentric, childish way. These journalist are still going to say it! And now this banning is giving them more amplification. Elon is acting like Twitter is his own private party. He owns it, I know, but as a CEO supposedly trying to run the company profitably, he should be focusing on what is best for the company, not his fragile ego!
I can't even begin to speculate what he thinks is his goal at twitter anymore. But I have to agree with KoGuan Leo that tesla needs leadership, specifically, new leadership.
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.
-
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:
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.
You may not think so - but volume and ramping matters. A lot.
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.
-
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 not 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'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.
-
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
on it!!
-
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.
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'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:
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.
You may not think so - but volume and ramping matters. A lot.
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.
Agree, volume and ramping matters a lot. But this is something legacy automakers are experienced with.
I have good reason for discounting Musk's predictions. He's pretty consistently over promised and under delivered. It's an issue of reputation and trust.
-
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.
-
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.
Hmm, this is more appealing.. I do see a 2019 LR AWD with 25k for $38k. Benefits (compared to new Bolt)
1)AWD
2)Faster
3)Longer range
4)Better/faster DC charging
So $34k vs $26k for brand new Bolt...now we're within $8k. A much better value proposition
-
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.
-
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.
Depends on what S&P has as their total market for EVs which they don't say. I think it'll be around 20% or 3,000,000 units. So they're saying Tesla's US sales could be 20% of that or 600,000 in 2025. I think that's unlikely. They're going to get well over 500,000 this year before tax credits and new models in 2023. Semi is in production. Cybertruck is very close to production. Model 3 Long Range hasn't been on sale. Model Y SR hasn't been on sale. Their compact vehicle is scheduled for 2024.
https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/products-services/energy-transition/european-long-term-power-forecast (https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/products-services/energy-transition/european-long-term-power-forecast)
If this company is right, Tesla 2025 would be 1.4 million units at 20%, haha. That would be something.
I get the PE argument, but I don't agree with it based on growth (which I know you don't agree with). PE has been done dozens of times in the thread and 50 PE is before they deliver 425,000 this quarter. Forward PE is more important for growth, but it's also a subjective metric. Porsche has 20 PE because they have good earnings like Tesla. If they were growing top line too, it'd be up there.
In general, if the brand is irredeemably damaged in 2023, EV TAM doesn't grow, or something else catastrophically bad, I'll reexamine the investment. Companies have to execute. Tesla has been executing like crazy, but that can always change and inevitably always does, but in this decade, it's hard to see Tesla not be a major auto manufacturer. But isnt just a car company, Tesla Energy is also growing 38% year over year right now also before 2023 credits. I've invested where I think appropriate and am still grabbing Tesla shares right now because it's so cheap to me. But of course you could be more right in the end.
-
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!
Nice! Have fun.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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......
-
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.
More on this.....looks like this is what I'd need to charge from house outlet?
https://shop.tesla.com/product/mobile-connector?sku=1763817-00-A
-
So... this thread has been around since 2018.
For sure, TSLA was a good investment from 2018 until relatively recently.
However, the stock is down 57% in 2022 (vs. 18% for the S&P 500). Losing almost 60% is a very bad investment.
If you thought TSLA was a good investment in, say 2021 (cause, you know, its on the record in this thread), do you still believe this was an accurate forecast? If you were wrong then, why should we listen to you now?
-
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.
-
sorry to clog the thread with my quesitons, but wanted to get some input from tesla owners here, if the participants will indulge me. I have a long driveway and can't turn around in it or garage due to some "stuff", unless I drive onto the grassy/planted part and unsure what is under there right now......or how car would behave.
So it's about 100-125 feet out to the street, And there is some shrubbery lining both sides of the driveway (have not parked in garage in years and years....so have not driven down this area). I cut shrubbery back yesterday before leaving (after having got warnings and sume swiping on the sides of car when pulling in), but still had a lot ot trouble and some shrubbery swiping.
The visibility with the turn around and look out the back to reverse is not good (but of course what I am most comfortable with after so many years of driving that way!). Using the screen, this early on with the tesla, I'm not surewhat all the yellow/red lines are meaning, it keeps making noises but I never know how close things are, which things are most worrisome. There are a few hard things to avoid backing out, edge of fence for one, but I never know if it is that or these shrubbery things causing the clamor/warnings. It's a learning curve which I'm sure I'll get eventually...
Can enhanced autopilot or summons get the car through this better? Or would that not work on a private drive? Or how could I get the car to map this? Is enhanced autopilot only for highway?
Any info from expenienced users appreciated!!
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
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.
Multi-billionaire Elon Musk has sold another 22 million shares, worth $3.58bn (£2.9bn), in the electric car maker Tesla.
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.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63981767
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Automakers are known for their continual improvement processes, and they've been doing it for decades. Tesla didn't invent it. Compare the build quality of a 1990s vehicle vs. a modern one... night and day difference. They have been very good at continual improvement on the ICE drive-trains, with a large cumulative improvement in engines, transmissions, etc. No one though it was possible 20 years ago for a pickup truck to get combined 25 mpg. And Ford was the first to innovate using aluminum for the body at scale. These are all practices I expect will carry over into their BEV lines.
The two-thirds of Ford dealerships that are seeking EV certification are spending around $1M each for this. They will up their game to make the investment worthwhile. I agree, they aren't there yet. But they will get there.
-
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....
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
If by "winners" you mean soaring stock price, yes! It's entirely possible that everyone switches over to EVs yet there's no single company that becomes fabulously wealthy in the process. Cars are physical things that are expensive to produce. As competitors step in to fill a market this drives down margins. This has happened repeated throughout history.
-
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
-
@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:
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.
Note: The bolded above is no longer true. It really didn't take the legacy company long to start producing true competitors.
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.
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?
-
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.
-
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).
https://insideevs.com/news/626150/byd-plugin-car-sales-november2022/
They have the battery problem solved. Giga Berlin is even using BYD batteries.
https://www.electrive.com/2022/08/11/tesla-to-use-byd-batteries-in-german-gigafactory/
The top selling BYD is the Song crossover. The next selling BYD is the Han, which is a mid-size sedan.
-
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.
-
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.
AS for your question. Yes Tesla is still a good investment. In my opinion the stock is on sale.
I’ve been invested since 2013 and have added shares steadily since, including just yesterday. The current SP in no way determines wether Tesla the company is a good long term investment. Tesla the company remains a good long term (no leverage, no options) investment because it still meets the simple investment hypothesis I established for myself in 2013.
I will remain invested in Tesla as long as EVs are the future of transportation and Tesla is the leader of this transition.
Tesla continues to execute, open new factories, roll out new vehicles, continuously innovate, and grow production 40-50% YOY. Nothing with respect to the company fundamentals or execution has changed (other than improving financials), only the short term stock price has changed. Holders should focus on the single and ignore all the noise.
-
Keep moving the goal posts.
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'm glad you're still happy with your stake in TSLA, you're a True Believer.
-
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.
Sure, sure, I was just pointing out that capitalism generally leads to lots of competition and limited/minimal margins. Tesla is probably not an exception to that. I think they'll be a leading auto company for my entire lifetime, but they're not going to take over the entire industry and cause every other car company to collapse. They'll be one among many leading auto companies, which is great. Making electric cars is just not something that is hard enough that nobody else is going to be able to compete. Margins for everyone will drop, just like any other mature industry.
-W
-
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.
Then I suggest not using them as your basis of 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......
Their comparison wasn't actually relevant, they jumped straight to mass produced, highly complex ICE vehicles for their comparison.
-
@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.
-
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.
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 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.
The only significant "long haul" category it would not be able to perform in is tandem drivers. Having tandem drivers is pretty rare (under 10%), even when just looking at the long haul fraction of trucking.
-
@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.
No, I did not forget about the stock split. Come now, this is getting ridiculous.
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/
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. Good lawd, and you guys are investors.
-
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.
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.
You don't have to do a better analysis, but we're free to ignore (or point out) a poor one.
-
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.
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.
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.
Oct 26, 2021 (date of bullish comment to Abe) - $359.01
Dec 16, 20221 - $150.23
That's a 40% drop, not a 5x return.
-
A couple more recent quotes from near the peak:
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.
Sounds familiar. Again, what happened to this thesis?
-
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.
Tesla has launched 6 new vehicles in their entire history. That is what GM or Ford does in a couple years.
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.
-
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.
Yeah, this is part of Apple’s magic also, among many others. So glad I get the benefit of these markets via total stock index.
When these vehicles are shown to last 15+ years with no major expenses I will be all in. That’s what I have established as my metric, based on my experience. I’d like to say 20 years, but things do generally need some wrenching by then. Until then, no product ownership, just investing.
-
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.
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.
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.
TSLA 3 year: 80.77%/year ... 5.9x
TSLA 5 year: 45.68%/year ... 6.6x
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnas/tsla/trailing-returns
For everyone else, there's no time machine to get those returns. The interesting question is what happens next year, after -57% YTD is in the rear mirror. If the market is wrong about mild/no recession, TSLA could drop further in 2023 (and it would not be alone). The company can do well, but the stock is punished for the current financial conditions indepentent of Tesla.
A rough search says 1% of US vehicles are EV, which leaves a huge addressable market even before considering Europe and China. If Tesla and legacy automakers all produce EVs, it seems like it will take a long time to saturate the market.
-
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.
Tesla has launched 6 new vehicles in their entire history. That is what GM or Ford does in a couple years.
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 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 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).
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.
-
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).
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.
-
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 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?
Yes, but not that much. And explains the lower prices. Picked up 2 more today.
And, since I am hoping for a change in managment, kind of good for Musk to have less of the company.
-
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.
Tesla has launched 6 new vehicles in their entire history. That is what GM or Ford does in a couple years.
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.
Hey colorado, do you know what the differences are going to be to make the 25k vehicle? Wondering what is going to be different....
-
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).
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.
Yes, this is along my lines of evaluation on the arguments here. Tesla is under a microscope for every passing statement made about upcoming production that didn't happen, but the competitors are just waved in with.....they're experienced.....they can do it.....
Yes, cybertruck was delayed a lot. Now that it is online, I was considering it. There is a 3 year backlog of orders to fill, so I couldn't wait on that! Working at capacity on the cybertruck press will take them 3 years to complete existing orders....
So, to have a compelling argument, you need to consider the pros and the cons of both tesla and the competition - so a 2x2 grid as it were. Only the negatives of tesla and the positives of the competition, which does not make for a compelling argument at all.
-
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.
-
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).
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":
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.
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?
-
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/
You didn't answer my question. Semi was delivered. How is it vaporware? That's by definition not vaporware. I don't get that rationale of what you're saying. Will Cybertruck still be vaporware after deliveries? You can make the argument up until it's being shipped I guess. IDRA shipped the 9k ton press for Cybertruck. It's going to be made.
Also completely ignored the fact that many companies delay products/services and cling to a weird only Tesla does this argument.
-
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).
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":
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.
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?
I'm not suggesting Semi wasn't delayed. I was operating under the definition that a product or service was Vaporware until produced.
va·por·ware
/ˈvāpərˌwer/
nounINFORMAL•COMPUTING
software or hardware that has been advertised but is not yet available to buy, either because it is only a concept or because it is still being written or designed.
Once delivered, it's not vaporware anymore. So I was asking how the Semi is now Vaporware.
-
So maybe some of you wiser ones can help me interpret this. I'm taking numbers from my td ameritrade accout information.
Tesla's PE is listed as 46 vs 35 for industry - so higher earning multiple which could be justified by much strong growth.
Price/Sales is 6 vs 100 for industry. So - price over gross sales is low, seems a positive. Investopedia tells me that a lower than industry number here could indicate the stock is undervalued....
price/book is 12 vs 11 for industry. I think this is impressive, that tesla is so close to the industry after being profitable for just a few years and buying so much equipment/land/building factories, etc. Seems like a huge investment in capital very quickly.
PEG ratio .96 vs .20 for industry. This seems odd to me, given tesla growth, but seems that the EPS is higher than the growth compared to other companies.
However, I am swayed heavily by the book value, as it seems to me that tesla stats are in the ballpark of the industry as a whole, while making massive investments in infrastructure that will increase production on profits going forward.
I'm looking forward to Q4 22 and Q1 23 results to see how the December delivery incentive and the new tax deal influence.
Then for Q2-4 in 23, the semi and cybertruck sales may all add in to some level of significance.
-
Oct 26, 2021 (date of bullish comment to Abe) - $359.01
Dec 16, 20221 - $150.23
That's a 40% drop, not a 5x return.
LOL! Goalpost shift rejected. That's almost 2 years after the post your referred to.
Can't you even keep track of which posters you lambast? I suggest going back and trying again.
-
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?
That "analysis" is overly simplistic to the point of idiocy.
Note "options." What happens when options are executed? Income tax is due. In this case, typically maximum Fed income tax + maximum CA income tax. Over 50%.
What's the absolutely standard solution?
Sell enough shares to cover the taxes.
With that out of the way - Musk continuing to sell off shares (apparently) to support his Twitter addiction/obsession is troubling.
-
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.
Tesla has launched 6 new vehicles in their entire history. That is what GM or Ford does in a couple years.
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.
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.
It cannot be denied that Tesla's margins are great but I'm betting that part of that is due to a lack of resources for new product launches. It is working fine for them now but what happens if the market is no longer interested in what they're offering? They're either going to have to drastically increase staffing or discount their vehicles. Their current staffing model seems to be closer to Stellantis/Nissan than the top brands of the auto industry.
-
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.
If you say something to the effect of "TSLA's valuation is higher than the other top 4 automakers COMBINED", it shows a very superficial view of how stocks are valued in the market. The stock market doesn't work like that.
As many have pointed out, the total addressable market for EV's is huge. Tesla's market share can go down and still grow revenue and profits. Tesla's earnings power is supported by real numbers if you care to look. Tesla's sales can be negatively impacted by a number of things including: 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.
Some bears spend so much time and energy commenting repeatedly in this long thread. They don't have a position in the stock other than what's in the index fund. I find that strange.
-
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.
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.
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.
:P
Don't let facts get in the way of the narrative......
-
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.
-
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.
We've covered this in the thread at least twice by now (you're bringing it up a third time at minimum). Being bearish on a stock and taking action on that predisposition are not the same thing, especially when it comes to investing. Some of us invest in index funds for the very precise reason that we can't know how individuals in the market can pan out. The markets can do weird things, especially in the short term. Sunk cost fallacy, survivor ship bias, and a myriad of other psychological tendencies make it a statistically poor decision to do for ANY stock; bear, bull, or otherwise. The general climate of the MMM forum is in this view; it is one way of investing. It doesn't mean that we can't verbally speculate or suggest our thoughts. I won't short a stock for the same reason I won't buy one; it's just not part of my investment goals. It sounds like this is offensive to you; this isn't personal. We are discussing a stock; it has nothing to do with your choices.
I personally am idealistically bearish on all vehicle sales. It isn't a realistic view though. I would love to short the whole auto industry because I don't think it is good for our planet. But that's a discussion that's been had as well. I don't think Tesla in general is a particularly bad choice; it's likely the best of all automakers. It's likely a great investment. But I don't want to own on an individual level for the same reason I don't want to buy stock in Nestle. The 4% rule is significantly more reliable from an investment standpoint and then I don't have to try to evaluate my personal beliefs with what I think the market is going to do.
Here's a brief summary of why I think the spotlight of our hopes and resources on cars is a distraction. Like any distraction, it's based on the truth (EVs are better than ICEs) but misses the forest for the trees.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ev-transition-column-don-pittis-1.6667698
-
I like a good argument and want to see different opinions. That's why I'm on this forum. But please do some basic fact checks before posting something(not you but everyone in general) we don't need to deal with obvious errors like these(just to name a few examples):
- comparing share prices between 2 companies without considering the market caps
- looking at the PE in isolation(e.g the PE is negative or too high..)
- the market cap of tesla cannot be greater than all car manufacturers combined
- posting links to sensational articles written to attract ad dollars (they can be easily fact checked)
There are many ways tesla can go down as I've written before but listing one of the above is just bad.
-
So maybe some of you wiser ones can help me interpret this. I'm taking numbers from my td ameritrade accout information.
Tesla's PE is listed as 46 vs 35 for industry - so higher earning multiple which could be justified by much strong growth.
...
Suspect your data is not correct.
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 maybe some of you wiser ones can help me interpret this. I'm taking numbers from my td ameritrade accout information.
Tesla's PE is listed as 46 vs 35 for industry - so higher earning multiple which could be justified by much strong growth.
...
Suspect your data is not correct.
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.
As I mentioned, these were the number in tdameritrade. What is defined as "industry"? Its not the sp500, but I can't find any specifics there.
-
Musk now says he will step down as Twitter CEO. It will be interesting to see how (or if) that affects the stock price.
-
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 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.
-
So maybe some of you wiser ones can help me interpret this. I'm taking numbers from my td ameritrade accout information.
Tesla's PE is listed as 46 vs 35 for industry - so higher earning multiple which could be justified by much strong growth.
...
Suspect your data is not correct.
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.
The part I don't understand about Tesla versus other mid-range to aspirational car companies is the huge amount of risk.
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.
-
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.
Well stated.
I should say that I'm one of those folks rooting for TSLA to continue pushing the EV market forward, and I'm bullish on the company long-term as a going concern. I'm just not bullish on the stock as an investment. TSLA isn't a tech company, it's a car company. Sorry, mounting a touch screen in a car doesn't change the fundamentals. Unlike select areas of the tech sector, the automotive industry is not a winner-takes-all market. In fact, the opposite dynamic is often in play, where certain demographics (especially at the high end) want vehicles that are less common (i.e. more exclusive). Once a baseline of functionality is satisfied, and there are many car companies with EVs now that meet this criteria, the rest of the car purchasing decision for most people is emotional. Things like styling, handling, comfort, refinement, and brand identity all weigh heavily in the mind of the consumer. That last one should be very concerning to TSLA investors as the brand is currently taking a beating (https://www.cnet.com/tech/tesla-customers-are-getting-turned-off-by-elon-musks-twitter-meltdowns/).
I also have a hard time accepting the claims of TSLA-perma-bulls. If a stock is a good investment on the way up, and while at the peak, and on the way down... I dunno, doesn't seem like a meaningful signal. Even a stopped watch is right twice a day.
-
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.
-
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.
To address other points in this posts:
My initial investment in tesla was 68.3k, the current loss is 26.8k. Purchases since then have not been as large. and kind of sprinkled around both time and account, so a little harder to easily quantify, and definitely just a fraction of the above.
Not sure what your understanding of the tesla model 3 is, but I'd like clarification on a 2022 car for 15k that is comparable?
-
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.
How about this from a longtime Tesla critic:
Tesla is a much more attractive investment now than it was a year ago, when it was a laughably bad investment with a three-figure PE ratio for a capital-intensive heavy industry dependent upon subsidies. A PE of around 30-35 might be reasonable for a stock that 5x'd its operating cash flow in 4 years, and more than 10x'd its net income in the past 2 years. Tesla is down to a PE of 42 now. Someone who likes to catch falling knives as much as I do could sell a 30-day put at $125 for $6.70 and lower their cost basis to $118.30, which would be 37x earnings. I won't be doing that before the recession, but at some point such a stunt will make sense.
Similarly, bagholders can use covered calls to partially dig themselves out, unless true belief gets in the way.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
by 2035? ok, let's see them do it.
-
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.
I'm not claiming environmental perfection nor applying for sainthood.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
oh dear. did you think I wasn't allowed to buy what I want with my own money?
-
and why would I buy stock in a company if I didn't find their products of value?
-
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?
Nope I don't think that.
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.
-
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?
Nope I don't think that.
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.
-
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.
I actually couldn't have less of an emotional investment here. It's like I decided to wear red shoes and people are saying.....oh no, you should have worn black. Maybe try white? no, not red.
Is it the exclamation points? I am naturally vivacious...and expository.
But I do have an opinoin, is it because i haven't changed my mind? Is that an "emotional investment"? or that I call people out for being kind of condescending? Cuz I do that too.
Tesla could go enron tomorrow, and I'd just say oh crap, count up my losses and move on. The edsel.....it happens!
I'll always have my ibonds.......
-
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?
Nope I don't think that.
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)
-
Of course you all don't buy roofs and cars, I get it. I'm so extravagant! Going places.....staying dry....the oobleck!
That rain water leaking in can be used for a nice bath......I guess?
But I think you are all relying on someone spending something.....or else the sp500 would be flat for like 15 years!
meanwhile.....
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-issues-dire-warning-over-ukraine-s-fate-if-u-s-delivers-weapons/ar-AA15xaXz?cvid=1ca591eb01f8409ca512ec402bab6aa2
-
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?
Nope I don't think that.
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.
I appreciate this, thank you. I find them to be extremely efficient, but will see where it all ends up in the next 10/15/20 or so years.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 haven't gone past the online estimate as yet, so that is something to consider as I go farther!
-
@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.
-
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.
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!"
-
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.
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!
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.
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!"
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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
@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 don't have LR or AWD!
RWD, black/white interior upgrade that I love the look! Hopefully, can keep it spiffy! Sport wheels, and enhanced autopilot, which I haven't tried as yet! A bit spooked, lol. I will get to it.
Cold climate, so I love the push a button on my phone to activate climate, and pile into a car that is warm with heated seats and stearing while. It's nice! I think you can cool them in the hot weather too? Not sure on that!
voice command for anything while driving is also super nice, and fun. When I say "deactivate climate", one of my (adult) children says I sound like a supervillian attacking the planet!
Not having LR, the battery in winter doesn't go as far as specs, using all those heating elements. Dealership said best range is at 50-80 degrees, there is also the battery warming itself up, and I have it on sentry mode as I hadn't cleared space in my garage as I intended...there is a lot of stuff in there. I think better to have the outdoor funture battle the winter weather on it's own rather than the car, but the table told the chairs not to walk out on their own, so waiting for a time to do all that, and busy with holiday stuff right now....
Looks like tesla has doubled the incentive for this month! Good luck getting one you like! feeling a bit disappointed!! Like they should refund me the difference, lol!
-
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!
-
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.
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!"
Yes, thank you!
I guess I can see why some posters are very bearish on tesla if there is never a good reason to buy an electric vehicle, never a good reason to get solar added to your roof, why would you see the value in tesla as a company or their individual products?
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 :)
-
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!
-
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!
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.
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!"
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.
Thank you for being specific. I think this is helpful for the conversation.
"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"
This interpretation is not accurate, but I'm will to fault myself on not being specific. I was always going to get solar eventually, I wasn't in a financial position to do so for a while, and I didn't really like the way they looked. I had my own ideas on when I got them, I was just thinking it would be best for the solar panels to just cover the whole roof, instead of being floating in the middle of it, and I had planned to try to do that when I got them, which was still a way off as I didn't want to get them put onto an older roof - but I would periodically shop around and see what was going on with solar development, etc. and found the tesla roof info just googling around and I was bowled over and thought - this is perfect! this is what I want!
"I will pay any price for an new EV, no price is too high for saving the planet!"
The first I heard about tesla was on a late night talk show where musk was a guest. Maybe about 5 years ago? Not sure. oh looking back - it may have been 2015...google search of musk guest slots.....
Anyhoo, I was so excited to hear about this company! I had a 4ish year corolla at that time, so plenty of life left in there and many years to plan, and I did want a tesla for my next car and thought that my financial situation would improve by the time the corolla got older (and it did!). But I did want to support a company that was looking at things this way, rather than an automaker who is being pulled into EV as just another consumer niche to fill. So my support of the company is based there. Telling me that a company that is going to go all electric by 2035 and that is the same level of committment, that doesn't make any sense to me. It's not that no price is too high, it's that I'm supporting a company that changed the future of consumer acceptance and demand for EV.
I am by nature a vengeful consumer! I buy nothing from the koch bros companies, for example. So most toilet paper and paper towel brands are off. So I do thinking about what I am supporting financially with my purchase decisions, and I've been like that for a very long time. Sometimes, I have to buy things from companies I don't like, and don't want to support, but I do try my best to not put my money where I don't agree with.
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
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.
-
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!
-
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
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.
In my defense, I wasn't replying to you with that quote. You've been nothing but cordial and I very much appreciate you sharing your thoughts. I sincerely don't want this to be directed at you, as I do not know you. It is my frustrations sometimes with this subject, and I sometimes vent on this forum because it often has like minded folks who understand that there are alternative (and I think better) avenues to life than the golden handcuffs that are so easy to fall into, and MMM has encapsulated that very well without being all hippy and unrealistic.
-
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?
He needs all the cash to run Twitter into the ground though. :P
-
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'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.
-
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 do hope cities evolve to be more ecofriendly, and I think they are.....slowly....at least in cases where climate change/pollution is a concern. But I do have to live in the city I am in today, as it exists. I've just gone 8 months without a car and it was neither easy nor really cheap, likely not even an improvement in pollution generation, and winter was going to be brutal without, and I decided to get a car. I was previously a very vigorous bicycle commuter.....long before MMM!.....but I was hurt in an accident and did not go back. I'd say 2-3 bicylist are killed in my city annually, and I'm just very grateful not to have been one of them. My illusion of invulnerability was stripped from me, and I tried, but could not go back.
Telsa is a personal choice I made. I don't think it is 'perfect' or the only one. I think it is a good choice and a reasonable choice for anyone to make today when considering an EV or roof or back up power generation. In the city and place I currently abide, I think it was a good choice and one I wanted to make.
This thread is about tesla as an investment. If the rationale someone is coming from is that tesla is not a good company, that the products are not desirable, that everyone who buys them is "wrong", that anyone who buys a car is "wrong", that anyone who opts for solar power or back up energy is "wrong", I guess that is their opinion. It isn't mine.
As an aside, I'm not seeing so high a level of action on environmentism by most people posting on MMM! so it looks like the production of the battery for the M3 produces nearly 2.5 metric tons of CO2. That is the equivalent of about 5 hours of riding in a plane somewhere. Some posters are more conservative of course, but I see a lot with many international, air-based travel plans that would create the same amount of CO2 as producing 8 batteries for M3s (for a couple with a 10 hour fight somewhere exotic). In contrast, I haven't taken a flight outside of necessary work travel in over 10 years.
And I'm not seeing people taken to task for it either!
I also just quickly looked at the thread on buying a chevy volt. It was a quick look, but I don't see anything in that thread about redesigning cities so cars are needed....
If someone is in the market to buy a car, EV or otherwise, a roof or power backup, then of course they can compare tesla to other options and find they prefer something else, or for some reason or niche that results in that something else just fitting better into their plans. Well....kudos to them!
-
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 agree, mental health crisis is a concern.
On the other hand, for myself, I'm happy to have him tear about twitter rather than tesla if this is in fact a meltdown. I'm very happy for him to continue to sell off his tesla shares! keep the pricing low for accumulation and makes him more easily replaced at the Tesla helm.
-
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.
-
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!
Absolutely! If you look at long term Tesla growth rates it's more like 50%!
-
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.
Yep. He's been going further and further off the deep end into the Qanon conspiracy bullshit.
-
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.
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.
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 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.)
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?
-
I realize my criticisms here are not received with open arms to most of the country.
You might take some time in self-reflection. Beating on a strawman is not making a valid criticism. If you choose to stop making caricatures to beat up and I would bet you get a better reception.
Beating on a strawman? Explain please. I feel I have been very fair to the counterargument.
You created exaggerated caricatures of mistymoney's statements and positions, then ridiculed the mistymoney via the exaggerated caricatures you created rather than engaging in honest discussion. You even put "quotes" around your exaggerated caricatures - which I would be inclined to call bald-face lying.
Example: "I will pay any price for an new EV, no price is too high for saving the planet!"
-
The part I don't understand about Tesla versus other mid-range to aspirational car companies is the huge amount of risk.
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 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.)
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?
For F and GM, others in america - are there pension liabilities for the AUW? I don't see it mentioned here. Does the UAW take the money already, so nothing owed by the manufacturers?
-
@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.
Gotta consider TOC, longevity, and tax breaks. On the utility front only Tesla has a reliable countrywide fast charging network. Looking only at purchase price shows a lack of understanding. Tesla purchase will make up the up-front premium over time and be more to drive.
-
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.
-
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.
Someone in 2021 could have said something completely opposite to what you just said:
"Got no real axe to grind in this one, but it's clear that the Tesla bear thesis has been broken. As impressive as the bear arguments have been, the market is clearly indicating a bright future ahead.".
You see how silly your statement is?
-
@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.
-
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 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.
-
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 realize my criticisms here are not received with open arms to most of the country.
You might take some time in self-reflection. Beating on a strawman is not making a valid criticism. If you choose to stop making caricatures to beat up and I would bet you get a better reception.
Beating on a strawman? Explain please. I feel I have been very fair to the counterargument.
You created exaggerated caricatures of mistymoney's statements and positions, then ridiculed the mistymoney via the exaggerated caricatures you created rather than engaging in honest discussion. You even put "quotes" around your exaggerated caricatures - which I would be inclined to call bald-face lying.
Example: "I will pay any price for an new EV, no price is too high for saving the planet!"
My friend, this is the MMM forum. I reserve the right to be hyperbolic and doll out facepunches. I am not being insulting or speaking with a tone or intent of malice. If that gets misconstrued as straw manning, then we are not speaking in the same context. I thought I was being clear with the quotes that they were not mistymoney's words, but rather an exaggerated interpretation of them.
-
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.
You're right, I am getting too off track for this particular thread. It isn't the right subject matter for here (I do have thorough responses to your points, but this isn't the place). I am only voicing why someone may be an environmentalist but not required to be enthusiastic about EVs or Tesla. Earlier in the thread it was mentioned that we should be rooting for them regardless.
-
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.
I do agree, but I still have concerns on Musk's influence on tesla being the green choice for EVs, and the developing never musk/tesla due to twittering....
One of my offspring begged me not to buy a tesla, said but elon musk is cancelled.......However, after experiencing the ride, now they want to drive it :)
Just wished tesla was a little more established before musk flaked out into qanon territory! So people see the deal :)
-
@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.
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.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/tesla-mileage-battery-capacity
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.
https://insideevs.com/news/592845/tesla-model-s-passes-1-million-miles/
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.
More data is needed of course, but the cost of ownership of a carolla or camry greatly increase after about 7-8 years with more frequent car repairs as the years continue.
I recently supercharged my M3, and it was $17.79.
Looking forward to see how much of that charging can come from the sun hitting my roof! 2023 or 2024 for that piece of it.....2025 at the most outside....
-
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.
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.
https://twitter.com/ForeverEversley/status/1603612770892918784
-
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.
That is good to hear!
two things I beleive about musk. He is egotistical and he is crafty. A part of me thinks he has taken such offense to any criticism that he is deliberately taking tesla stock as low as it can go to wash out the more speculative/trader stock holders and so that only what he perceives as his true understanding tesla fan base reamins with the stock. Then let the good new flow!
He mentioned at the oct 19th 3rd quarters earning call that 4th q was going to be good....what did he know just half way through the Q? Hyperbole? Or something of real significance?
-
Got no real axe to grind in this one, but it's clear that the Tesla bubble has burst now. As impressive as Tesla's growth has been, the market is clearly indication that a sharp slowdown is now baked in.
The market does not always act rationally and the stock price is not the company. The company continues to execute and grow rapidly. Since I’m an investor and not a trader the short term volatility does not concern me beyond the buying opportunity it presents.
All that really means is you have no capacity for re-evaluation of your thesis based on new evidence. Sure, the market doesn't act rationally, but that's not to say every huge drop in a company's stock is also irrational.
however, you interpret it as completely rational, and the upmovement as irrational. How is that different?
-
I 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.
-
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.
The problem I has is that Elon Musk is an expert at saying the right thing and then doing the opposite. I don't see how anyone could trust a word he says anymore.
As I'm watching the market, my optimism for Tesla in 2023 is fading rapidly. I posted up-thread an expectation that they'll increase 2023 deliveries by a third. I no longer believe this to be true.
Tesla relies on word-of-mouth marketing to sell cars. They don't have a marketing budget or a meaningful sales team. They generate sales because someone buys a car and tells all of their friends about how great it is. And they do make good cars. I've know multiple people that have bought them since 2014, and each one has become a semi sales person for the company. To the point of being annoying about it.
Something interesting started happening a few months back when Elon started taking his crazy pills. Everyone who owned a Tesla is still happy with it, but they're strangely silent about telling their friends. They just don't care to talk about it like they used to. Elon Musk broke Tesla's sales model.
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.
-
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.
All signs -- overall China pain, the related Shanghai factory slowdown, and US Tesla rebates increasing -- point to a Q4 delivery miss. The stock likely has this priced in already.
-
With the recent price adjustment, model 3 and Y inventory are quickly sold out in many local areas in the U.S.
That said, the price adjustment will probably bring down the margin a couple percentage points this quarter.
-
Supply in my area went to zero within two days of the $7500 discount.
-
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.
Please spare me the patronizing condescension. I posted me investment thesis years ago to this very thread and constantly reevaluate that thesis in light of new information. I have made factual post after factual post to this thread explaining Tesla’s technical and financial advantages. People are certainly free to disagree, but I will never understand why folks who have failed in the past to see Tesla’s rapid growth and profitability feel the need to ascribe the success of those that did to blind luck or religious like fervor. I’ve listened and will continue to listen to contrary view points. That I’ve found no bear arguments compelling (with respect to Tesla’s long term prospects) is not for lack of consideration on my part.
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 won’t insult you in kind for having a different opinion. I’ve dealt with patronizing advice/concern going back to 2013 and Tesla has proven my understanding of the market to be correct time and again. This thread and time will settle who has the more accurate read of the current situation.
-
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.
Not true, customer surveys show many new Tesla owners trade in Corollas and Civics. You’re using the Model X and S pricing as a straw man, but ignoring Model 3 and Model Y pricing in the $40K - $50k starting range. In that range, the difference in price can certainly be made up once you subtract the EV subsidies ($7,500) and factor in long-term TCO. In fact, you could come out ahead in under 10 years of ownership when comparing a base Model 3 to leading ICE sedans.
-
I realize my criticisms here are not received with open arms to most of the country.
You might take some time in self-reflection. Beating on a strawman is not making a valid criticism. If you choose to stop making caricatures to beat up and I would bet you get a better reception.
Beating on a strawman? Explain please. I feel I have been very fair to the counterargument.
You created exaggerated caricatures of mistymoney's statements and positions, then ridiculed the mistymoney via the exaggerated caricatures you created rather than engaging in honest discussion. You even put "quotes" around your exaggerated caricatures - which I would be inclined to call bald-face lying.
Example: "I will pay any price for an new EV, no price is too high for saving the planet!"
My friend, this is the MMM forum. I reserve the right to be hyperbolic and doll out facepunches. I am not being insulting or speaking with a tone or intent of malice. If that gets misconstrued as straw manning, then we are not speaking in the same context. I thought I was being clear with the quotes that they were not mistymoney's words, but rather an exaggerated interpretation of them.
That was not at all clear and not how quoting works. If TomTX hadn't pointed out that you were misquoting Misty I would have assumed she wrote the words you were placing in quotes. Perhaps you need a face punch for feeling the need to “exaggerate” or parady someone’s clearly stated words to bolster your argument and sense of superiority.
-
What would you call it, if not irrational, for a company to lose 60% of its stock price value, at the same time it’s making industry leading margins and growing 40-50% YOY, mostly because of macro declines and largely irrelevant Twitter noise. I could understand some amount of drop due to Elon’s stock sales and larger recession fears, but the stock price has become completely detached from the company’s execution. This will eventually be rectified, which makes the current stock price attractive IMO.
I'd call it a realization that 40-50% yoy growth can't happen forever. If it continues for another ~12 years, Tesla would be the only car company left in the world.
Further, the repeated mantra of the stans is that "There's no competition." There is, though. It's not a lot but, in the states, there are plenty of EV choices out there and many of them cost a lot less than a Model 3 or Y. More models are coming. In Tesla's #2 market, Tesla has competition that'll probably outsell them this quarter (and not from subcompact cars either).*
So why is the stock declining? Because the stock was supported by the Musk myth and it was treated like a WEB2/FAANG stock. The emperor is naked, it turns out.
I could be wrong, though, and Tesla may execute at 40+% growth for the next few years. Their Mexico factory may meet that demand and Tesla will be selling at...4M/year? The $45k+ car market isn't endless, however, and they'll need to release that 30k Tesla sooner rather than later.
* Weekly EV registrations come out tomorrow (Tue) in China.
-
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.
-
I'd call it a realization that 40-50% yoy growth can't happen forever. If it continues for another ~12 years, Tesla would be the only car company left in the world.
3) Tesla doesn't just sell cars. Sure, that's the biggest chunk of their current business - but if you overfocus on that, you miss the potentially bigger picture:
- Tesla is well established in energy markets - specifically solar installs, storage installs and grid services. Just renewable energy installations were ~$1T globally in 2022 and are expected to continue rising rapidly.
- Tesla is now a retail electricity provider.
- Tesla sells car insurance.
[/li]
[/list]
Wouldn't that mean it's also an insurer and a utility, with the "conglomerate discount/penalty" applied to it? Valuations for insurers/utilities aren't >38x P/E though.
-
I'd call it a realization that 40-50% yoy growth can't happen forever. If it continues for another ~12 years, Tesla would be the only car company left in the world.
Everyone in the discussion realizes that as a general concept. However:
1) That same argument has been made for over a decade, with no signs of slowing yet. Why specifically should it be a big deal in 2022 when there is no definitive sign of slowing?
Are you certain of that given Tesla's rebates/incentives in China and their plant closure in Shanghai? Why would they do that if there wasn't a sign of slowing?
edit: It's Q4 and Tesla will almost certainly meet 40% growth in 2022. 2023 is the big question mark.
2) Disruption can cause huge shifts in markets. At one point Ford had 75% of the global motor vehicle market. Later on, GM had well over 50%. If Tesla hits just 25% of the global car market, that's a trillion dollars a year in revenue from car sales.
It's possible but that would be 4x the revenue of Toyota. Also, do you think the EU will let Tesla control 25% of the car market? Would China allow that (and they're the #1 car market in the world)?
3) Tesla doesn't just sell cars. Sure, that's the biggest chunk of their current business - but if you overfocus on that, you miss the potentially bigger picture:
- Tesla is well established in energy markets - specifically solar installs, storage installs and grid services. Just renewable energy installations were ~$1T globally in 2022 and are expected to continue rising rapidly.
- Tesla is now a retail electricity provider.
- Tesla sells car insurance.
- Tesla now produces a portion of their own battery cells at a rate where they can supply 1k vehicles/week, capturing more of the supply chain value.
- Medium and heavy duty trucks/buses will have huge uptake of electrification over the next decade - and Tesla just delivered their first few dozen Semi.
What Vashy wrote. How does Tesla differentiate itself in the car insurance market to achieve a 38x PE? Does any utility have a 38x PE? POR doesn't and DUK doesn't. Wouldn't that be a drag on Tesla's profit margins, which would bring down the stock price?
-
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.
-
I realize my criticisms here are not received with open arms to most of the country.
You might take some time in self-reflection. Beating on a strawman is not making a valid criticism. If you choose to stop making caricatures to beat up and I would bet you get a better reception.
Beating on a strawman? Explain please. I feel I have been very fair to the counterargument.
You created exaggerated caricatures of mistymoney's statements and positions, then ridiculed the mistymoney via the exaggerated caricatures you created rather than engaging in honest discussion. You even put "quotes" around your exaggerated caricatures - which I would be inclined to call bald-face lying.
Example: "I will pay any price for an new EV, no price is too high for saving the planet!"
My friend, this is the MMM forum. I reserve the right to be hyperbolic and doll out facepunches. I am not being insulting or speaking with a tone or intent of malice. If that gets misconstrued as straw manning, then we are not speaking in the same context. I thought I was being clear with the quotes that they were not mistymoney's words, but rather an exaggerated interpretation of them.
That was not at all clear and not how quoting works. If TomTX hadn't pointed out that you were misquoting Misty I would have assumed she wrote the words you were placing in quotes. Perhaps you need a face punch for feeling the need to “exaggerate” or parady someone’s clearly stated words to bolster your argument and sense of superiority.
Yes, I can see how it is perceived to be constructed poorly on my end. I was under the impression that the quotes not being put in the quote boxes would be enough to show I'm not directly quoting, but did not consider that this would be read too casually for that to be picked up. Regardless, I concede that it is confusing.
I don't conceded to doing it intentionally or out of malice, which is what I seem to be being accused of. I also still stand by my point, and that I was also, perhaps too seriously, recalling a trend of calling out status norms that are often called out on the MMM forum.
Here is where I feel that Tom (and you) took my intent wrong, and the part I wish to correct, acknowledging that I understand how you took it that way.
which I would be inclined to call bald-face lying.
We won't agree on my main point, but I am not lying. I am not bothered on a personal level that you don't agree with me, but I am participating in good faith conversation.
-
Lots of cars look like they didn't depreciate much in the last few years, but that's just a pandemic artifact. Used car prices are already falling and they'll fall a lot in the next year or two, and then Tesla (and all other cars) depreciation will look normal again.
At some point I told my EV-crazy son that if Tesla hit $100 a share I'd buy him a few shares, but given Musk's behavior especially wrt Russia/Ukraine, I'm not sure I could bring myself to do it. An actual Tesla car is a hard no for us at this point (my son, who is teaching himself Ukrainian, is furious about the Ukraine stuff).
At some point nobody wants to be associated with a crazy a-hole and I think Musk has managed to achieve that status now.
-W
-
Got no real axe to grind in this one, but it's clear that the Tesla bubble has burst now. As impressive as Tesla's growth has been, the market is clearly indication that a sharp slowdown is now baked in.
The market does not always act rationally and the stock price is not the company. The company continues to execute and grow rapidly. Since I’m an investor and not a trader the short term volatility does not concern me beyond the buying opportunity it presents.
All that really means is you have no capacity for re-evaluation of your thesis based on new evidence. Sure, the market doesn't act rationally, but that's not to say every huge drop in a company's stock is also irrational.
however, you interpret it as completely rational, and the upmovement as irrational. How is that different?
I never said that at all.
Most price spikes are indeed irrationally large, as are most collapses - how else would we know what a fair price is if we don't at first exceed it? that's just the way the market works. Prices don't smoothly tend towards fair value, but rather from one extreme to another.
The trouble with buying Tesla today is that you have no idea if the price will bottom at $115 or $75 or $55 as its a falling knife.
-
Lots of cars look like they didn't depreciate much in the last few years, but that's just a pandemic artifact. Used car prices are already falling and they'll fall a lot in the next year or two, and then Tesla (and all other cars) depreciation will look normal again.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-used-car-price-bubble-110559465.html
-
Ouch, TSLA taking a beating. Down more than 11% today, -42% for Dec, -73% for 2022. Hearing rumors/suggestions that margin calls may be immanent.
-
Yes, Tesla appears to be shooting the rapids. Massive China slowdown. Sagging sales in the US (thus incentives). Unhinged CEO. The entire EV trend appears to be slowing. Too many issues for one company at this stage in its infancy.
-
Tesla’s gigafactory in Shanghai is having some downtime at the end of December and then in January for the Chinese NY. Chinese NY is the biggest holiday in China and Tesla employees were not given off for NY the past two years. This is past due. However, some parts of the factory (probably those that make limiting factor components) will remain in operation over the holiday.
The December slowdown has more to do with COVID than anything else. Half the country seemingly has COVID at the moment. Workers at Tesla and Tesla suppliers are out sick. Does anyone really think it unreasonable to cut back production for a brief stint in the midst of this COVID outbreak?
I will concede that Tesla did need to lower prices about 5% at the end of 2022 to stoke domestic China demand. Consider though that Tesla Shanghai had drastically increased production over the course of 2022. So, was it increased production or weakening demand (or some of both) that necessitated the price cut?
So, to put this in perspective. Tesla had to lower prices, perhaps temporarily, in one country, where they dramatically increased production over the past two years, in the middle of a global economic downturn and the sudden reversal of China’s zero-COVID policy, such that they will only be making 25% margin instead of 30% margin, assuming the increased efficiency from the larger production volumes or reduced material costs don’t make-up for the price drop.
Forgive me if I don’t panic sell, which is what Wall Street was hoping I’d do with my shares.
Anyway, appears for now, TSLA has established a bottom. IF P&D numbers for Q4 are solid, I expect Tesla will continue this rebound. Regardless, Tesla the company continues to execute, Tesla energy revenues will take a big jump up this quarter, and 4680 cell production is finally picking up pace (enough cells for 1,000 vehicles/week). In house cell production will further expand Tesla’s technological lead and margins.
Bears will continue looking at the day-to-day news feed to sieze upon the reason-du-jour that Tesla is over-valued, destined to fail, or about to be overtaken by competition. This has been the bear MO for the as long as Tesla has existed, all while Tesla has grown by leaps and bounds. Never looking backward to admit the last 20 reason-du-jours were proven to be nothing-burgers or grossly exaggerated, just quickly moving onto the next secure in the knowledge that one day they’ll be proven right. Laser focused on the individual trees that support their preconception, largely oblivious to the global-disruption sized forest springing up around them.
-
Tesla Model Y was the top seller in Europe (all vehicles not just EVs) in two of the last three months (Sept and Nov). This is likely to continue into 2023 as Berlin is still ramping up. While China is an important market, any discussion of Tesla demand needs to look at the global market in the context of QoQ or YOY results. Bears are notorious for cherry picking results from one or two countries in a particular month as being reflective of overall Tesla demand. Delivery waves, changing regulatory frameworks/incentives, and currency exchange rates can result in lumpy deliveries month to month in specific countries or even regions, which is why its important to keep an eye on the big picture over the long-term to get an accurate take.
https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/tesla-model-y-became-europes-best-selling-car-in-november-surpassing-longtime-leader-vw-golf
-
Hm, rethinking this.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
A friend of mine said he always wanted a Tesla but has changed his mind recently and is going to purchase an EV from another company ... all due to Elon's very divisive statements. For someone that is supposed to be smart, he sure doesn't act like it. I don't think it's a good investment because Elon is sabotaging things. My friend and I really liked Elon until recently.
I wrote a few months ago in this thread I believe, that I think his divisive statements, along with acquisition of Twitter, were going to hurt TSLA, and sure enough it's gone down quite a bit since then.
But who knows what will happen.
-
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.
-
This thread has been a treat to read :D
My 2 cents, yes i think it's a great investment right now. I picked up Tesla stock this week, I haven't held TSLA since 2013 (yes I'm kicking myself for selling after making 30% in less than a month), but finally with the P/E below 40, to me, that's a good value for the company that continues to grow production as well continues to create new market segments.
Other than the P/E finally coming down, the main reason I'm excited for Tesla is it's semi production. I know they only have 1 factory currently and there's only so many batteries to go around, but I think this will be huge growing market. Every company on earth is pledging to reduce their carbon footprint by crazy amounts in the next 10, 20, 30 years... the truth is most have no clue how they'll get there. They will be hungry to find solutions anywhere they can (hopefully not C offsets), and electrifying their fleet seems like a great solution to hit their targets. (this assumption of course is predicated there will continue to be market pressure for companies to continue to go green, and that TSLA will hold
But I'm no warren buffet so we'll see! I've told myself I'll hang on to them for at least 2 quarters to see if their earnings continue to grow.
Yep, market has gifted a lot of former TSLA investors a great re-entry point. I agree with you on the potential of the semi. I agree companies will love to tout their green credentials while lowering their C footprint. However, I don’t think the green aspects are what is going to drive semi sells. The fleet economics alone will be the primary driver. Once Pepsi's real world results verify Tesla’s semi specs, then the game has changed overnight and any fleet not operating EVs will be at a competitive disadvantage and paying a premium to ship their goods to market. The commercial transition to EV will happen much faster and with more urgency than the retail EV conversion, which involves converting one car owner at a time.
I really hope you're right! Pepsi has the first real world test case, but several major companies have placed orders as well. I hope the commercial transition to EV is fast too, the incentives are there... especially because these companies need to replace their fleet on an on-going basis anyway, so the investment to EV is really just the delta over the normal BAU fleet investment.
Even with me being bullish on the semi growth, I don't know if the semi will ever be a significant part of their revenues, I think the car segment will continue to grow for quite some time. This is just my opinion, but it feels to me like we're just now leaving the 'early adopter' phase...no? EVs have been around for over 10 years, but there's always been barriers of ownership. Now it feels like EVs have worked their way to being normalized... people are actively planning their homes around future-proofing their power systems, there are so many good options out now. Tesla won't keep it's EV market share going forward, but I don't think they even need to for the current share price to be a good deal.
I think it depends on where the FSD goes. If Tesla can move freight without drivers in 5-10 years? Kind of crazy to think of but I think that is where they are trying to get.
-
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.
-
Not specific to Tesla, but for those who keep thinking the sky's the limit, I'd recommend this excellent video basically reiterating all the problems we know are associated with growth investing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bokYM_UAMGA
- little evidence that higher growth persists over 1-5 years for both revenue and especially earnings
- Analyst expectations are too optimistic, and the higher the initial growth rate the worse this becomes
- Nominal GDP growth tends to be a real restricting factor
- Best growers tend to be clustered in the middle quintiles, not the extremities (= avoid hyper growth and value traps)
- This is unfolding again as Nasdaq-100 earnings growth is now being outpaced by the S&P's
-
Tesla deliveries missed on Q4: 405k vs 427k/417k consensus. It had 40% yearly growth vs 2021 and 18% growth from Q3 2022. Excess inventory, or maybe cars in ships, is 9.4% of Q4 deliveries.
https://electrek.co/2023/01/02/tesla-record-vehicles-delivered-q4-2022/
Given the EOY incentives (in the US and China), interest rates, and covid in China, this wasn't too much of a surprise. Semi deliveries from my quick search were 32; it'll be fascinating to watch those deliveries grow.
YOY growth in production was 47%. Like you mention, the Q4 miss on deliveries was largely due to logistics and Tesla’s stated desire to unwind the EOQ delivery wave/rush. Lot of cars still on ships and stuck in ports, but no indication these cars don’t have buyers waiting on the other end. Could be that some softening of demand in China moved Tesla to export more of MIC vehicles to Australia, SE Asia and Europe, which meant more cars in transit at EOQ. Having two weeks worth fo production in transit at the EOQ will likely be the new normal going forward.
Phenomenal YOY growth given the macro environment, pandemic, and supply chain issues. Exiting 2022 with a 1.7 Million yearly production rate. Target for 2023 should be for around 2 million vehicles.
-
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.
-
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 will continue to go down in the near term, and then at some point an enormous uptick.
Right now there is overwhelming negative press and stock sentiment. Good news in terms of performance or development has no impact, and any minor negative news drives a big stock decline.
It may take scaling of the cyber truck combined with improving macro (eg rate increases paused, or lowered). I am still up more than double from my cost basis but I'm not bullish for the first half 2022.
However still bullish long term and if it dips lower I'll pick up a few more shares.
We will at some future point be looking at absurdly low valuation relative to growth rate and profitability and that will trigger the stock price to get momentum. Might take 6-24 months for that to happen.
-
I think it depends on where the FSD goes. If Tesla can move freight without drivers in 5-10 years? Kind of crazy to think of but I think that is where they are trying to get.
FSD... and also the federal and state govt approvals for FSD approval. (Regardless of whether it's TSLA, Ford, GMC, etc.) And how the auto insurance industry could be impacted by FSD - if the car's software is driving then is the driver still liable? I have often wondered if/to what extent the auto insurance industry would lobby against FSD.
FSD is a confusing marketing term, so much so that Tesla can no longer use it in California. SAE Levels of Autonomy is an actual agreed upon standard. FSD implies Level 5 Autonomy and that's been the goal, but in reality it's a long way off and is essentially Level 3. Waymo and GM Cruise have actual Level 4 Autonomous vehicles in operation in the wild. These are fully self-driving within defined operating conditions (typically predefined routes/areas and weather), which is quite useful in the common use case as most rideshare rides are relatively short and within an urban area.
In any case, I personally will not trust any Level 4-5 system that does not assign liability to the parent corporation while active.
-
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 think it depends on where the FSD goes. If Tesla can move freight without drivers in 5-10 years? Kind of crazy to think of but I think that is where they are trying to get.
FSD... and also the federal and state govt approvals for FSD approval. (Regardless of whether it's TSLA, Ford, GMC, etc.) And how the auto insurance industry could be impacted by FSD - if the car's software is driving then is the driver still liable? I have often wondered if/to what extent the auto insurance industry would lobby against FSD.
oh - that is an interesting thought! Tesla does do their own insurance, so I would think that would be the best deal for anyone using FSD.
But yeah the lobby angle might be something that comes into play at some point.
-
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]."
-
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....
-
What is the insight here on the big price drop? The Q4 miss on #cars seemed pretty minor, but the family in a tesla off a cliff in california seems to be big news.
The stock drop is all about the miss as it suggests that Tesla's high growth is starting to slow. If Tesla is starting to look more like a car company rather than a tech stock, why should it be valued so high?
As JP Morgan's Brinkman noted, "We have questioned the company’s ability to sustain this rate of growth [50% CAGR]."
Thanks, I thought the huge drop couldn't have just been that, but if it is, I guess says some are very spooked going into 2023.
-
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. As Tesla increases production it’s inevitable that more cars will be in transit at the end of the quarter. On top, Tesla had some logistics issues resulting in more cars being in transit. All these cars have owners waiting on the other end. That Wall Street failed to account for Tesla’s unwinding of the delivery waive in their delivery estimates should not reflect poorly on Tesla.
Clearly, in the near term and bad or perceived bad news will be used to maximum effect to drive the stock down. Meanwhile Tesla continues to execute. Eventually, stock price will reflect continued execution. Long-term holders have seen this movie before.
-
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
-
What is the insight here on the big price drop? The Q4 miss on #cars seemed pretty minor, but the family in a tesla off a cliff in california seems to be big news.
The stock drop is all about the miss as it suggests that Tesla's high growth is starting to slow. If Tesla is starting to look more like a car company rather than a tech stock, why should it be valued so high?
As JP Morgan's Brinkman noted, "We have questioned the company’s ability to sustain this rate of growth [50% CAGR]."
The miss in deliveries does not confirm or even suggest a demand problem.
Bolded. That's not what Brinkman stated. Tesla will continue to sell more cars but perhaps not at 50% CAGR anymore.
I guess he's saying that's a demand problem? Based on an arbitrary growth rate (why not 75%? or 30%?).
Tesla increased production 47% YOY despite COVID and supply chain issues.
Tesla increased deliveries "only" 40% from last year. Unfortunately, that's less than Musk stated earlier this year.
Elon Musk‘s electric-vehicle maker said Monday that it delivered about 1.31 million vehicles last year, up roughly 40% from 2021. The company would have needed to hand over more than 1.4 million vehicles to meet its initial goal of increasing deliveries by 50% or more.
When a company gives guidance, and there's a miss, it affects the stock price. Mr Market has always worked this way.
-
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.
-
Admittedly I have not read the whole thread, but:
Are people who've had Tesla stock for a while continuing to hold? Tesla is one of the few individual stocks I hold, having bought around 10 years ago. I'm holding on to it for now, although it's painful to watch its continued decline (down another 14% today alone!).
I am holding and adding. I do have concerns about musk being a negative factor in product demand, I don't have concerns about the products themselves.
I think we can assume that most CEOs are assholes, this one is just very publically and vocally so and going very much against the grain of tesla's core consumer base, which naturally is much greener and forward thinking that those who don't consider the environment when making purchases. Ford and GM were supporting trump at one point, and legislation that would hinder the move to EV weren't they? So what is the alternative? Toyata was an early forerunner, and now that they got behind for whatever reason, seems they are trying to delay the move to EVs until they can catch up? pretty gross considering the climate crisis.
Buy merch from quieter assholes? that seems what some are doing....
That seems like a major mischaracterization considering the context of this discussion. Ford/GM have worked with and hosted presidents from both sides of the aisle, as you expect from any large business in the US. Nothing they have done was on the level of what Elon has done in the past couple months.
-
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 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'm not justifying shit. If someone is going to change their car purchase plans due to musk's tweets - hey good for them. What company will they buy from instead, and why is that company bettter at delivering what they want in a car and supporting that buyers' ideals than tesla? And how are they investigating that?
And how are people thinking about a company vs and individual person and what those entities are separately or jointly bring to the table for that person?
elon's an asshole so I'm going to buy a ford mach-e. So - you're supporting a company selling more ICE vehicles than EVs. They'll be up to 40% EV by 2030........Because musk has verbal diarrhea on twitter. ok. good for you? have fun with it?
Take a look at the Top Electric Vehicle ratings on sites like Motortrend, USNews, Edmonds, KBB, Car and Driver, etc. The competitive landscape has shifted dramatically in the past 1-2 years. Lots of great vehicles to choose from: Tesla, VW, BMW, Mercedes, Ford, GM, Kia, Hyundai, Porsche, Rivian, Lucid, Volvo. Not everyone likes the Tesla style or brand, including the association with Musk and his recent antics. Every brand has a different identity and appeals to a certain market segment.
I'm not in the market for a vehicle for the next few years, but when I buy my EV I don't feel a moral obligation to buy from an EV-only company. An EV takes an ICE engine off the road and reduces GHG emissions regardless of who makes it or what other vehicles they manufacture. Buying an EV from Ford or GM or whoever also makes ICE vehicles encourages them to shift more of their production to EVs.
-
Tesla plunges over the cliff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF0gnnMgPW8
-
I am holding and adding. I do have concerns about musk being a negative factor in product demand, I don't have concerns about the products themselves.
...
The CEO factor here is compounded here because a) Tesla buyers tend to be quite liberal, left-coast types who are politically astute and read the news and b) the Tesla CEO has not only acted mentally unhinged recently has also taken on some very vocal right-wing views (about Trump, Ukraine, etc). People are not only declining to buy new Teslas but in fact selling their used ones out of shame. The Musk brand is becoming very politicized (unlike other car bands) and politicized in opposition to it's historical customers.
-
I think it depends on where the FSD goes. If Tesla can move freight without drivers in 5-10 years? Kind of crazy to think of but I think that is where they are trying to get.
FSD... and also the federal and state govt approvals for FSD approval. (Regardless of whether it's TSLA, Ford, GMC, etc.) And how the auto insurance industry could be impacted by FSD - if the car's software is driving then is the driver still liable? I have often wondered if/to what extent the auto insurance industry would lobby against FSD.
Fair question on liability. In general, I think insurance companies are going to favor FSD. Tesla’s millions of miles of FSD data confirm a sharp decrease in the number of accidents per mile driven versus human drivers. It’s not that FSD is ready to be autonomous or will ever be perfect. It’s more that FSD will never drive drunk, distracted, or tired. FSD is already better than many elderly and new/young drivers. FSD is such a potential huge savings for insurance companies that I could see them adopting a no fault model for every accident involving two vehicles where both vehicles had FSD engaged. They’d still be coming out way ahead even if they paid half the damages for every accident that occurred with FSD. No one is going to fight hard against a technology once it's common knowledge how many lives are going to be saved.
-
What is the insight here on the big price drop? The Q4 miss on #cars seemed pretty minor, but the family in a tesla off a cliff in california seems to be big news.
The stock drop is all about the miss as it suggests that Tesla's high growth is starting to slow. If Tesla is starting to look more like a car company rather than a tech stock, why should it be valued so high?
As JP Morgan's Brinkman noted, "We have questioned the company’s ability to sustain this rate of growth [50% CAGR]."
The miss in deliveries does not confirm or even suggest a demand problem.
Bolded. That's not what Brinkman stated. Tesla will continue to sell more cars but perhaps not at 50% CAGR anymore.
I guess he's saying that's a demand problem? Based on an arbitrary growth rate (why not 75%? or 30%?).
Tesla increased production 47% YOY despite COVID and supply chain issues.
Tesla increased deliveries "only" 40% from last year. Unfortunately, that's less than Musk stated earlier this year.
Elon Musk‘s electric-vehicle maker said Monday that it delivered about 1.31 million vehicles last year, up roughly 40% from 2021. The company would have needed to hand over more than 1.4 million vehicles to meet its initial goal of increasing deliveries by 50% or more.
When a company gives guidance, and there's a miss, it affects the stock price. Mr Market has always worked this way.
Here we go again. An analyst “questioning” forward demand is not proof of a demand problem.
Can you concede that when Musk stated more than 40% growth there may have been factors that were unknown. Perhaps he didn’t factor in a global economic downturn. Ongoing war in Europe. Rampant COVID outbreak in China. Continued global supply chain and logistics issues. Passage of the IRA, which pushed forward demand in the US to 2023. Given all this its amazing to me that Tesla grew deliveries by 40% and production by 47% this year. If Musk had sandbagged and put out a goal of 35%, everyone would have their mind blown that Tesla beat their goal by 5% and achieved 40% YOY growth! What manufacturing-based company does that in this environment!
Lastly, and what you continue to ignore, is that the difference between the production and deliveries is not unsold inventory sitting on dealer lots. It's largely cars that already have buyers, but are in route. It represents approximately two weeks of Tesla production and in two weeks times all these cars will be delivered and in the hand of their owners.
If you want to focus on Tesla “missing” long term delivery estimates by a few percentage points and ignore 40% YOY growth I guess that’s your right. Seems rather short sighted and a poor evaluation methodology.
-
What is the insight here on the big price drop? The Q4 miss on #cars seemed pretty minor, but the family in a tesla off a cliff in california seems to be big news.
I read the article, and 1- there is no indication that autopilot or FSD was involved, and emergency services was shocked that there was any survivor when they first saw movement, and then it turned out all family members were injured but alive. I think that is saying something about the saftey of the car?
Interested to hear others' interpretation on this.
Wishing the family the best recovery, of course. Don't mean to seem careless of them at all in discussing this event in the investment context.
But I am wondering why everything bad that happens to in a tesla is front page news with the Tesla as an emphasis. Someone in a tesla caught on camera picking their nose at main and central streets! Of course if enhanced autopilot or FSD was a factor, that I can see being quite newsworty. But so far not the case according to reports.
Although i was targeting acquiring 1-2 shares per payperiod, the PE I calculate now is about 28? So I picked up some extra today (Payday is Friday)- and lengthening my expectation on seeing an upside on tesla overall. My initial purchase of 100 shares (now 300 after the split) is down over 50%. My goal will be to buy in dribs and drabs here and there with a target of somewhere between 600-1000 shares. So will keep buying tesla as a very small portion of my regular investments until I hit the target amount, or I retire and stop accumulating, whichever comes first.
FWIW, the father drove off the cliff intentionally in an attempted suicide. Miracle all survived and testament to Tesla safety features and build quality. This exact location has claimed 30 lives in as many years from cars going off the cliff. Media loves to sensationalize every incident involving a Tesla will exaggerated or misleading reporting. Every Tesla vehicle fire is headline news even though ICE fires occur at a much higher rate.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tesla-driver-plunged-family-california-cliff-purpose-officials-say-rcna64170
You’ll notice this article attributes the children’ survival to their safety seats (even though they’re 4 and 7 years old) and were the parents also in child safety seats? Heaven forbid the Tesla vehicle get any credit for the outcome...
-
What is the insight here on the big price drop? The Q4 miss on #cars seemed pretty minor, but the family in a tesla off a cliff in california seems to be big news.
I read the article, and 1- there is no indication that autopilot or FSD was involved, and emergency services was shocked that there was any survivor when they first saw movement, and then it turned out all family members were injured but alive. I think that is saying something about the saftey of the car?
Interested to hear others' interpretation on this.
Wishing the family the best recovery, of course. Don't mean to seem careless of them at all in discussing this event in the investment context.
But I am wondering why everything bad that happens to in a tesla is front page news with the Tesla as an emphasis. Someone in a tesla caught on camera picking their nose at main and central streets! Of course if enhanced autopilot or FSD was a factor, that I can see being quite newsworty. But so far not the case according to reports.
Although i was targeting acquiring 1-2 shares per payperiod, the PE I calculate now is about 28? So I picked up some extra today (Payday is Friday)- and lengthening my expectation on seeing an upside on tesla overall. My initial purchase of 100 shares (now 300 after the split) is down over 50%. My goal will be to buy in dribs and drabs here and there with a target of somewhere between 600-1000 shares. So will keep buying tesla as a very small portion of my regular investments until I hit the target amount, or I retire and stop accumulating, whichever comes first.
FWIW, the father drove off the cliff intentionally in an attempted suicide. Miracle all survived and testament to Tesla safety features and build quality. This exact location has claimed 30 lives in as many years from cars going off the cliff. Media loves to sensationalize every incident involving a Tesla will sensationalized or misleading reporting. Every Tesla vehicle fire is headline news even though ICE fires occur at a much higher rate.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tesla-driver-plunged-family-california-cliff-purpose-officials-say-rcna64170
You’ll notice this article attributes the children’ survival to their safety seats (even though they’re 4 and 7 years old) and we’re the parents also in child safety seats? Heaven forbid the Tesla get any credit for the outcome...
oh my gosh, I did not see that! How terrible for the mom and children. I don't know how you live with that, that your husband/father tried to take the whole family out. Sending them good thoughts for their future healing...
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
Bears have always been super concerned about Tesla's end-of-quarter pushes to deliver cars and insisted it was bad practice.
Now that Tesla is finally easing up on that push, they're now flip-flopping to being super concerned about that as well.
OMG! 2 whole weeks of production in transit!
Oh, and I'll note - when Ford marks a car "sold" to a dealer, it's usually because Ford loaned the money to the dealer to "buy" the car.
-
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.
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.
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.
Stop taking this so personally.
1) mistymoney was wondering why the stock dropped 12%.
2) I responded on why the stock dropped.
3) That's when you interjected about how Mr Market was wrong, the analysts were wrong, and I was wrong.
Yet it happened. The stock did drop 12% on Tuesday. Railing against analysts or me or sellers doesn't change that.
As for cars on ships being "sold," non-deliveries don't make it into the quarterly earnings. Tesla follows GAAP and maybe there's a way to book full revenue before actual delivery but you'll have to take that up with Tesla's accountants and probably the IRS.
Besides, those cars on ships will be reflected in next quarter's earnings.
-
Analysts expect a little less than 40% growth in 2023. Deliveries are much higher than expected from analysts in 2020 and 2021. Morningstar said they expect 2030 deliveries on CNBC yesterday to be 5 million which is an interesting insight into their models. Here's the last week of December averages for some analysts. Obviously these estimates will have changed after Monday's delivery print, but I don't have that yet.
(https://i.ibb.co/rsks8QQ/image-6487327.jpg)
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. I guess the point I like to keep in mind how close consensus estimates are in the near term, but how far off they are in the long term.
With Q4, the CFO said just under 50% growth in production on the Q3 call. They got 47% production growth, but that vague guidance created unreasonable expectations on deliveries too. I wish Tesla had a PR department and managed expectations better. They're coming in at $5.15 EPS for 2023 according to Bloomberg consensus. So concesus Forward P/E right now is 20 and they also expect ~20% growth in 2024. As an investor, there's definitely risk they come under those numbers, but there's also potential they come in higher. IMO, their 2025-2026 numbers are absurd, like IEA EV growth estimates each year over the past 5 years.
Also, Megapack factory is ramping in Lathrop, CA. 10,000 Megapack capacity at $2.1m/pack. That could add $0.60-$1 EPS depending on the margin in 2024.
-
@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?
-
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.
-
@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?
From Investopedia:
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.
This is why communication from companies nowadays is so formalized, usually through PR departments and carefully controlled messaging at investor events. And it's why Musk's off-the-cuff remarks and shitposting on Twitter are so problematic.
-
thanks @lemonlyman and @FINate, that is a little broader than I was thinking.
-
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?
-
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?
I don't know. But interest rates shift the demand graph for sure. Hopefully they clear up what happened with deliveries on Jan 25 earnings. They've been saying for years that they are trying to flatten delivery waves, but data out of china has also been soft. They cut prices in China last night to stimulate local demand. They're working through 90-180 day raw material contracts at inflated flat prices so prices will come down anyway, but it also looks like they are trying to compete with BYD. And China is having severe COVID problems right now anyway. I'm sure everything has an impact.
New interesting video on the Semi:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvg_i0GE0Vo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvg_i0GE0Vo)
-
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
-
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
I certainly won’t argue that price cuts are somehow good news. I do think it’s worth noting some context though. These cuts come after several raises in the past year or two that saw the average sale price increase by about $10k/vehicle. I guess on some level it was probably unrealistic to think Tesla could grow production as quickly as they have and without mass-producing any new models since the Y and not have to pull some demand levers.
The good news is I think these price drops can be offset, such that Tesla may be able to maintain current margin levels. The dollar is softening and currency exchange rates will now favor Tesla for all vehicles sold outside the US. Raw material costs are dropping. The continued ramp of Austin and Berlin will spread the capex cost of those factories across ever more vehicles. Further refinement and simplification of the manufacturing process (4680s, giga-casting, shipping vehicles shorter distances) offer further cost savings. It’s quite possible Tesla can make-up for the price drops in the near-term, such that margins remain relatively unchanged.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
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?
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% 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.
-
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?
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.
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.
-
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?
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.
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.
I’ve addressed all the concerns you put forward in your last paragraph multiple times in the course of this thread. I don’t have “optimism” or “belief” in Tesla. I have an investment thesis that I’ve backed up with facts repeatedly. It doesn’t mean I’ll be proven right, but I find it annoying the Tesla bears find it necessary to ascribe blind belief or emotion to Tesla bulls.
As for Toyota, they have totally dropped the ball when it comes to EVs. They made a huge mistake going down the road of hydrogen and wasted crucial years. They’re a dying business and headed in the complete opposite direction as Tesla (shrinking sales versus rapidly growing sales). Additionally, Toyota also does not have solar, software, FSD, battery storage, or insurance as growing profit centers on top of automotive that I’m aware.
How much higher would Tesla’s current EPS be if Tesla wasn't plugging earnings back into R&D and Capex? How much lower would Toyota’s EPS be if they had been making the necessary EV investment in recent years. One company is sacrificing current earnings for future earnings and growth and one company is sacrificing future earnings and growth for current earnings. Which would you rather own?
-
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?
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.
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.
EPS isn’t a like for like metric because every company has a different amount of outstanding shares. Tesla had more profit than Toyota last quarter despite Toyota having 4x more revenue and selling 8x as many cars.
The industry isn’t as homogenous as you make it seem anyway. When there’s no material volume growth and net margin is less than 5%, yeah, a Forward PE of 7-10 makes sense. Here’s some other outliers: Porsche has a Forward PE of ~20 because it has margins like Tesla but little growth. BYD has a Forward PE of 50 because it has volume growth like Tesla but small margins. Tesla has both volume growth and high margins. The current price seems cheap imo.
You assume it’s rational but what is usual about a Forward PE of 20 for a company growing earnings >50%/year and market (not just industry) leading return on invested capital? Can you find another? Let me know! I’d like to check it out for investment. Tesla is at maximum negativity right now but it is still executing with new products (auto, energy and software) and continuous iterations to current products.
-
In my opinion Tesla was maybe overvalued a bit before but now way undervalued.
Lower PE than Walmart.
Comparison PE to legacy auto makes no sense; anyone halfway serious and logical / non biased could see a huge number of meaningful ways that Tesla is positioned much better as a company than any other auto manufacturer.
Early 2023 may be a slow start due to some macro headwinds but as cyber truck scales and energy business prints huge profits with mega packs it will be clear 2 years from now how shortsighted the Tesla bears were in early 2023.
-
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
That person puts in work. Thanks for the link.
-
insurance as growing profit centers on top of automotive that I’m aware.
Does anyone know how much profit comes from Tesla insurance?
-
Timely
https://fallacyalarm.substack.com/p/what-is-a-fair-pe-ratio-for-tesla?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
Thanks, a lot to digest there.
Of particular interest I found is how they selected the peer group for comparisons. Brought a lot to the discussion.
-
Couple more YouTube videos with relevance to recent discussions here.
This one does a nice job breaking down the economics of the Tesla Semi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeh_bURqRPs
And here’s one on worldwide auto sale trends and a forward look at the ongoing transition from ICE to EV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDGf6ysDlQ8
-
Timely
https://fallacyalarm.substack.com/p/what-is-a-fair-pe-ratio-for-tesla?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
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?
-
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.
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.
-
EPS isn’t a like for like metric because every company has a different amount of outstanding shares.
EPS = Earnings per share
-
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?
It does for sure in the short term. Hard to say in the medium. Not much difference long. Pricing is certainly competitive now. With the tax credit, a long range Model Y is $45.5k? That's going to sell, but now they have to rely more on volume. But there are more unknowns like FSD take rate now that it's available to anyone, energy margins in 2023, or corporate tax credit amounts for battery manufacture. Hard to say. I don't particularly like it much for margins. They need to be crystal clear on 1/25 earnings and 3/1 investor day on their expectations for 2023.
Here's one positive take written before they happened. Don't know what ASPs will actually be but $46k sounds about right:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Flwy85CXEAIbZne?format=jpg&name=large)
EPS isn’t a like for like metric because every company has a different amount of outstanding shares.
EPS = Earnings per share
Thanks?
-
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.
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.
-
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 said prices would decline but cost would too. Tbh, today's price cuts were way more dramatic than I thought in one go. Margins will certainly compress in the near term. I thought they'd do it throughout the year.
But you've always ignored cost. Incremental decline in COGS/unit and increasing operating leverage. You think costs are static?
-
(https://i.ibb.co/fDtDJjf/back-of-napkin.png)
Rough numbers I'm thinking about today. Energy and other reached $3 billion in revenue in Q3 2022, but this is only auto. Can't take out proportional Op Ex out. Wouldn't know what those are. But there are other businesses growing that I think they are expecting to build the earnings on and only enhance operating leverage IF they can squeak out GM on them. Megapack ramp suggests they can.
But yeah, hit on margin. Getting back to pre-covid/inflation pricing in difficult macro environment. Waiting to see how far they can lower COGS now that inflation is cooling and Texas and Berlin are speeding up production. With the $7500 tax credit they haven't had access to since December 2018, these are really competitive with ICE segment cars on price in addition to total cost of ownership.
-
I wonder if the massive hit on sales that non Tesla manufacturers
might will 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 manufacturers might will 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.
-
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
There is one reason to own Ford shares. Ford runs an "X-pricing" program for anyone who has owned 100 shares (~$1,300) for at least 6 months.
I bought 100 shares back when I was looking at the Mach-E. It would have saved me about $800 on the purchase. I went a different direction on the purchase, but I'm curious to see Ford's next EV entrants before I sell.
But you're right. It's not worth buying on business fundamentals.
-
I wonder if the massive hit on sales that non Tesla manufacturers might will 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.
-
I’m very interested in the now price parity with midrange models of ICE vehicles. The Y is now price parity with midrange models like Toyota Highlander, Jeep Grand Cherokee, and Honda Pilot. Lots of buyers there who now have a new choice. Same with the model 3 at $36.5k after the credit.
Sticker price minus fuel and maintenance makes it very compelling. Not to mention easily best infotainment. And standard autopilot is way better than most adas. Tho Openpilot got a big price cut, but I don’t think most buyers get it to improve the standard.
-
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.
All true, but largely irrelevant. As has been covered multiple times in these forums, most EV owners charge at home most of the time. Charge times and 260 vs 330 miles of range doesn't matter as long as these are good enough. For daily driving, 200+ miles and overnight charging is good enough. Sure, a segment of consumers really value efficiency, maximum range, and fast charge times, and Tesla may capture a lot of this segment, but if you look the EV market today there are a number of vehicles that are close enough that the differences are marginal (https://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2022/09/most-efficient-ev-top-10---the-110-mpge-club.html). But in relative terms this is a shrinking segment as more people choose EVs based on intangibles like style and brand identity.
The EV price wars have started. As someone looking to buy an EV in the next couple of years, I'm watching gleefully as car companies commit to over $500 billion in EV investments through 2026, multiple new models hit the market yearly, and companies battle it out on price and features.
-
ICE is the main loser in this “pricing war.” But Tesla and BYD are the only ones to show margin at all so far in EV. So going to be rough to continue down for most as Tesla continues to drive down its cost.
Tesla has a lot coming down the pipe.
1. Cybertruck
2. Generation 3 platform
3. Lithium refinery
4. Continuous 4680 ramp
5. Next Giga locations
6. Megapack ramp in Lathrop
7. Insurance expansion
8. V4 superchargers
And FSD is the elusive white knight in the investment. This expansion of vehicles continues the data training flywheel. Who knows when it’s done but it drives me around very well today. I’d say it’s done in 2024 for sure. Looking forward to V11 soon.
-
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.
-
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.
Highest profit per car.
I think 3.3 billion is their profit for *just* the third quarter? I'm having trouble finding precise numbers for 2022, but I saw trailing 12 month profit at the end of the 3rd quarter around 11 billion. I'm not sure where that puts them ranked against other companies overall, but I'm thinking ahead of GM, so not sure about the stats you posted.
Primarily, I was addressing @waltworks who stated Tesla will lose money for years. Over 3 billion in profit in one quarter isn't losing money.
-
Wait, Tesla is losing money? Aren't they the most profitable car company in the world(per car) by a huge margin?
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that Tesla spent a long time losing money before they got to the point where they were making money. Other car companies are going through the same process with EVS right now.
-W
-
@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???
-
Some of the infrastructure is the same, some that is specific to the ICE engines will be written off in another decade when ICE cars aren't being made anymore.
I mean, it's not going to put anyone out of business, I'd guess. They'll have to build/convert some plants, but they can just let the ICE specific infrastructure decay as demand drops and then shutter it eventually.
Like I said, I'm not rushing out to invest in legacy car companies either!
Honestly I have a feeling this is going to be a Levi Strauss situation where the boring subs that supply materials/subassemblies for EVs are going to be the real winners.
-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?
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.
Margins will be fine as well despite the price cut. Small decrease in Margin % for a couple quarters, will still show healthy continued profit growth long term. Degree of price cut was due to IRS unexpectedly screwing Tesla by making the Y not an SUV.
Tesla went on offense and dropped price to get under the non SUV cap.
They will spread fixed cost across more car sales so margin hit will be less than expected and over time trend similar to historical average. Also energy profits will be enormous long term and Cyber truck has 1.5 million orders; will be high margin.
-
@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???
The billions in ICE infrastructure pay for the EV development as they build scale. TSLA investors supported Tesla through their money losing period. The legacy OEM investors wouldn't tolerate losses with $/kwh so high. So the legacy OEMs use the funds from ICE sales the same way that Tesla used funds from investors.
-
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.
Yes, thank you. I mis-read the link and grabbed q3 profits as yearly.
Tesla in 2022:
Q1 - 5.4 (https://www.counterpointresearch.com/tesla-revenue-reached-record-high-of-18-8-billion-during-q1-2022/ (https://www.counterpointresearch.com/tesla-revenue-reached-record-high-of-18-8-billion-during-q1-2022/))
Q2 - 4.2 (https://mercomindia.com/teslas-revenue-up-16-93-billion-q2-2022 (https://mercomindia.com/teslas-revenue-up-16-93-billion-q2-2022))
Q3 - 3.3 (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/19/tesla-tsla-earnings-q3-2022-.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/19/tesla-tsla-earnings-q3-2022-.html))
Q4 - Not reported yet
Q4 of 2021 was 2.32 billion in profit though (https://techcrunch.com/2022/01/26/tesla-closes-2021-on-a-high-note-by-besting-expectations-in-q4/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHfUxhqdF7gYoOvRb9BOn4Vw0UFAKtswWlDhF7BWBPPNmlfrAdvKkMhD6e5ByQdiSjkL5HpReZAG-CuUACQ0-EEkNTojkD00O1qgRataNO6pu7mDaCqJlMLu0X--8045zSf9odMz4N3hM9-vcTAn479nOeIxkN9rvWMS8mGWKWTR#:~:text=In%20the%20final%20three%20months,company%20earned%20%242.54%20per%20share. (https://techcrunch.com/2022/01/26/tesla-closes-2021-on-a-high-note-by-besting-expectations-in-q4/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHfUxhqdF7gYoOvRb9BOn4Vw0UFAKtswWlDhF7BWBPPNmlfrAdvKkMhD6e5ByQdiSjkL5HpReZAG-CuUACQ0-EEkNTojkD00O1qgRataNO6pu7mDaCqJlMLu0X--8045zSf9odMz4N3hM9-vcTAn479nOeIxkN9rvWMS8mGWKWTR#:~:text=In%20the%20final%20three%20months,company%20earned%20%242.54%20per%20share.))
So for the past four quarters that have been reported, Tesla has a profit of about 15 billion - substantially more than I mistakenly claimed. Still not competing with Toyota, but much higher that 3.3 billion obviously.
Just another example of how the typical Tesla bear has no clue what they are talking about.
I'm not a 'Tesla bear' or 'Tesla bro'. I don't invest in car companies, and have no horse in this race at all. I only looked it up out of curiosity.
-
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.
-
Well - I am a bit miffed about the big, unexpected price cut after buying in dec, lol!
miffed I say!
-
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,
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.
-
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)
-
Lengthy, but a ton of useful information and discussion. Speaks directly to EV competition, Tesla price cuts, and forward looking EV market.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-BpSCypjU
-
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.
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, 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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
Well, they've already cut prices. That should increase demand. So in no way am I saying they'll do 760k in 2023. That might have been true if they didn't adjust prices, the IRA credit didn't exist, etc. Economic conditions aren't static. Interest rates could go up or could go down. But that doesn't change the fact that Tesla had hit terminal demand at old prices of, optimistically, 200k/quarter. We have the facts now and those facts undercut the "unlimited demand" talking point - of course, so did common sense if you applied it to a company trying to compete almost exclusively in the $50k+ vehicle space.
I actually think Tesla may be close to being fairly valued at the moment. It is growing, so the 6-8x earnings multiple that traditional autos get is probably too low. But it is still a capital intensive business, so they shouldn't get a "tech multiple" either, imo. Company was obviously overvalued at $1tn. So a 20-25x earnings multiple is probably correct, which is where the market has settled for the last few weeks.
50% growth is a nice story and narrative. It gets harder each year, though. I mean, it implies that in 2026 they'll grow from 5m to 7.5m or some such. That's *A LOT* of new units for one year. Easier to do when it's just adding a few hundred thousand units. Of course, that's the risk/reward game that investors are playing.
Tesla the brand has taken a lot of damage over the last year. It's tied, for better or worse, to Elon Musk, who has decided to go QAnon on Twitter and generally piss of Tesla's previous core customer base - liberals and environmentalists. Some don't mind, sure. But you can follow brand surveys and Tesla's brand has taken a hit. Fairly big risk for a company to have that erratic of an egomaniac CEO.
-
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.
-
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.
Funny, came here to post this exact video. Sandy is cantankerous at times, but knows his stuff. If folks want to go straight to the juiciest bits, start at the 7:25 mark.
-
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/
-
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/
Hahaha, our only hope is he changes his mind again tomorrow.
-
PRESS RELEASE - 19 JANUARY 2023 23:00
The safest new car of 2022: Tesla Model Y crowned What Car? Safety Award winner as European new car releases achieve best-ever Euro NCAP test scores
Tesla’s fully-electric family car achieved the highest overall score of any car tested under Euro NCAP’s latest – and most exacting – protocols. Additionally, the Model Y’s near-perfect 98% Safety Assist score, which relates to the performance of its collision-avoidance systems, is the highest ever recorded by the European safety rating agency.
“The Tesla Model Y is an impressively high performer. Its Safety Assist score is the best we’ve ever recorded, and its Adult Occupant Protection score of 97% is the best in 2022,” Thatcham Research’s chief research strategy officer, Matthew Avery, said.
https://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/thatcham-research/pressreleases/the-safest-new-car-of-2022-tesla-model-y-crowned-what-car-safety-award-winner-as-european-new-car-releases-achieve-best-ever-euro-ncap-test-scores-3228291?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=Alert&utm_content=pressrelease
Tesla is just another car company, nothing unique, or exceptional.
Bolded emphasis mine.
-
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?
-
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)
The Bloomberg article is a good source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-19/elon-musk-directed-tesla-autopilot-video-saying-car-drove-itself-tsla?srnd=hyperdrive&leadSource=uverify%20wall
"...he made it clear that he wanted the video to show the car was better at self-driving than it actually was since it was just a demonstration of what Autopilot would eventually be able to do.”
“[m]ere failure to realize a long-term, aspirational goal is not fraud”
This didn't work out so well for Elizabeth Holmes...
-
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.
-
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 judgemental! it was just a tweet!
-
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.
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.
So your "neither seems particularly plausible" claim is based on... your massive ignorance of the topic at hand?
Got it.
-
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.
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.
So your "neither seems particularly plausible" claim is based on... your massive ignorance of the topic at hand?
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"?)?
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? :)
-
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.
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.
So your "neither seems particularly plausible" claim is based on... your massive ignorance of the topic at hand?
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"?)?
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 first 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?
-
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.
I don't have to substantiate my concerns. By default, the answer to the question "is X a good investment" is "no." The burden of proof is on you to show that megacasting gives Tesla a materially significant advantage over rivals that is not easily replicated. I remain unconvinced. Clearly we disagree, and that's fine. You do you.
-
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?
-
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?
I found his tone condescending. The top comment mentions his high level of swagger. Whatever you want to call it (and I don't want to derail this thread with a semantic debate), I'm not the only one to observe this.
-
For what it's worth, I think the following video does a much better job explaining Tesla's gigacasting design for repairability:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1bQbA3EOKw
The incorporation of replaceable crash absorption rails is a key bit of information missing from this discussion and previously linked video. I still want to see actual data on gigacasting vs. unibody repair costs, but expect we'll need a few years before good data emerges. In any case, if Tesla Insurance is willing to commit to insuring these vehicles at an affordable rate long-term then I would have more confidence in the new design.
-
Wife and I pay about $60/month for full coverage on a 2023 Model 3 AWD Long Range; not Tesla Insurance. We have an 18 year old in the house so our rate would be lower if it was just us.
-
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.
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.
So your "neither seems particularly plausible" claim is based on... your massive ignorance of the topic at hand?
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?
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.
Per your post, this is an example of "quickly acquire and then employ or destroy new technologies ". Rather than accept that, you decided to attack my motivations based on incorrect speculation. Shameful.
Oh, and if you bend the frame on most modern cars, it's scrap. Your approach here displays both vast ignorance about cars and indicates you are employing "motivated reasoning" for some unexplained reason.
-
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/
Just FYI, Sandy Munro was very critical of the original Model 3.
-
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
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 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".
Meh, you quoted me out of context. I don't have to substantiate my concerns because the burden of proof is on the side claiming something is a good investment. This isn't specific to Tesla. I don't invest for fun. I've been FIRE for nearly 8 years now and have come out ahead through multiple recessions and panics. It's my livelihood and the "default no" approach has saved me from a bunch of bad investments that would have otherwise derailed retirement. If someone claims TSLA is a good investment because gigacasting, then I want to see compelling evidence for that, which includes refuting valid concerns about repairability among other things such as reasonable estimates on cost reductions and the difficulty of it being replicated by the competition. I'm not even arguing that it's not a good innovation, I just want to see the evidence.
-
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.
-
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%.
-
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.
Asking for evidence/data isn't a strawman.
For all the reasons I've listed on this thread, TSLA just isn't for me. You don't need to convince me otherwise, nor do I think you're wrong to be invested in Tesla. Most of my investing energy goes into trying to prove myself wrong w.r.t. investment ideas, so please don't view my skepticism as just hating on TSLA. You may even make a ton of money and I'll be genuinely happy for you without a hint of FOMO. Years ago I made peace with the fact that I'm making decisions that are right for my specific situation with the information available at the time. You're on a different path and have a different perspective, and that's also fine.
-
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?
Apologies, I don't follow every sub-thread of discussion closely (in this case, between you and ChpBstrd) or commit to memory who's invested in what. So let me restate: I don't think anyone here who happens to be invested in TSLA is wrong.
-
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 : )
-
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
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.
The 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.
Perhaps with electrification we're moving away from a repair ecosystem where people rebuild the ICE engines and transmissions of their cars, and we've moving toward a repair ecosystem where the motor and battery contain most of the car's value, and we replace the disposable body around these parts. I think all-plastic cars are on the way. It might simplify recycling of the shell when you can just pull the drivetrain and melt the whole thing at once, straining out a few bolts and wires.
Also, the paint seems to last longer on plastic car panels because they don't get as hot and because corrosion doesn't seep up from underneath the paint. Look at how many 1990's Saturns still have glossy fenders and doors (the hoods and roofs were metal though).
-
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.
-
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.
Bingo!
To further illustrate your point on the growth of energy segment (see attached graph). The services gross margin includes Tesla insurance. On the earnings call it was mentioned Tesla insurance entered 2023 with annual revenue of 300 million. Comparisons to legacy auto will become increasingly irrelevant. Tesla is a software and hardware company, a an energy company, a car manufacturer, a service company, and an AI company.
Tesla’s strong cash position (and virtually no debt) is also paying off in the financials (see graph). Compare this to legacy auto with billions in debt.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
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). And then there were complaints about how Tesla counts revenue (by delivery, not when a car rolls off the line), even though that's clearly mentioned in Tesla's edgar filings.
Then there were the cries of "There's no demand problem!" even when Tesla was cutting prices and the Shanghai factory shut down at the end of the year. Because companies drop prices all the time by 10-20% when there's high demand and people are clamoring for a product.*
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.
* To forestall the predictable response, Tesla doesn't have a demand problem now. Price might have something to do with that.
-----
It'll be interesting to see if Tesla can maintain its EPS and profit margins this quarter. Their best selling car is the Y and prices were cut by $13k ($12.5k) in the US (and by 13% in China). The Y now qualifies for the EV rebate so volume will obviously go up but profits will obviously go down. I think lemonlyman is correct in that Tesla did achieve some COGS/production efficiencies last year given its revenue missed but EPS exceeded.
-
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 : )
.
Since, we’re looking at Tesla SP performance over time. Let’s take a trip down memory lane. In September 2018 you were concerned about Tesla’s looming bankruptcy and expressed the bolded concern below. Somehow Tesla managed "to operate a little longer” and the stock price is up 8X from the date of that post. All stocks eventually go to zero, so if you keep expressing new concerns eventually one of them might come to fruition in a meaningful way and you can crow about how you knew it all along. Don’t give up!
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I'm confused.
Are you suggesting that there wasn't a risk with Tesla in 2020? That Tesla stock is/was as safe as holding T-bills?
I also wrote that trades have 2 sides. Do you disagree with that?
Eta: Do you want to address the EPS issues I raised? Or do you prefer to try and score points in your self-created tribal game?
-
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.
It wasn't directed at you, then.
-
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.
Their IR shareholder delivery deck has included it numerous times. In the Q3 2022 deck,
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.
It was also in the Q1/22 deck, and the Q4/21 deck, and the Q3/21 deck...
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.
* During the Q1 2022 earnings call, Musk predicted "a reasonable shot at a 60% increase over last year" and "So it seems likely that we will be able to produce over one and a half million cars this year. That's my that's my best guess." He's an off-the-cuff guy but investors listen to that shit. He still hasn't learned that.
-
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.
-
Yeah - I consider all of that noise rather than signal. I wouldn't buy an individual stock to "score big" in 1-2 quarters (although it doesn't hurt!), it would be expectations to score big (aka over and above the sp500) over the long haul.
On my initial purchase, I am down 26%. I'm not super excited by that, and I am tracking it, but I bought for the 5-10 year and beyond potential for the stock. Even stock picking 1-2 years forward is not for me, not where I would have any expectation that I would do well at all. Seems like reading tea leaves to be able to do that, or lottery-esque. aka more chance than skill involved. (ETA: for MOST people. Those who have those skills, I am assuming are super rich by now.....)
And tesla as "just" a car company, I would not have bought the stock although I would have bought the car. It is tesla as the disruptor to the auto industry (which is already 'done' in my opinoin, now is just the long term fallout of that disruption), and the coming disruption in AI/FSD, energy, etc. that has me wanting to attach to the tail of the comet on that one.
And sure - it may not happen. Nothing is guaranteed. BYD may scoop on autos, someone else on AI, and someone else on roofing, energy, etc. But no one is competing in all these spaces at once, which makes tesla so exciting as a company and makes it so unlikely someone is going to scoop at all of those segments, or scoop all of them even less likely. Odds favor the house heavily on this one. So I opted to be part of the house.
Whether tesla said they were estimating growth to average 50%/year and they only do 40% growth a year (this year, or average per year ongoing) is completely irrelevant to why I bought the stock. If they are down 70% one year with a bear market and supply chain issues, has 100% nothing to do with why I bought the stock. If they don't exceed their ATH within 5 years, then I will be filed under "disappointed".
So mark your calendars! We will revisit my post on 1/27/2028!!!!
-
It’s definitely a long term bet. I invested in early 2020 figuring to hold for like 10 years.
Actually picked up a few additional odd shares recently when it seemed absurdly oversold.
I like to follow the company to know what’s going on but not looking to actively trade and not that concerned with the short term stock price fluctuations, given my time horizon I’m more concerned with actual company performance and fundamentals.
I think 2023 will be decent but not a banner year in terms of revenue and profit growth. Mega pack will give a good profit boost and that is I think under appreciated by the market. That business will have explosive growth for the next several years, I think it’s sold out through 2026 already and the Lathrope factory will ramp up significantly over the next couple years.
Model 3 and Y sales will grow but face some headwinds from high interest rates and potential 2h recession.
Cyber will be released this year but not have meaningful impact due to low volumes. As that ramps in 2024 and 2025 that will eventually have a huge impact. 1.5m preorders.
Semi will also likely be a solid profit booster but again not in 2023. They just announced the building of a new semi production line in Nevada, so I would guess that will ramp a bit in 2024 but more 2025 and 2026.
Then they have a lower cost model 3 in the works and likely a compact introduced in a couple years.
Easy to see a straightforward path to high growth through 2030.
-
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. There is not a chink in the armor. Shorts are scrambling to cover, people who sold are buying back their shares, plus people that have been on the sidelines are inching to get in. The stock was very cheap. The stock is up more than 20% in 2 days. It may now come back down a little after a gigantic move in such a short period of time. Getting the stock is still a pretty good way to get exposure to electrification and AI if you have a long horizon. I mean if you own stocks and like BYD, by all means get some BYD. You don't need to limit yourself to BYD only.
-
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.
Fair enough. I didn't listen to the call.
How does Tesla maintain profit margins with the price drop? Did they cut costs by 10-20% recently or achieve 10-20% efficiency in the last month?
-
Attached chart shows Tesla has been achieving average annual growth of 50% from 2013 to present. As Misty and Viking state above, long-term investors aren’t concerned with quarterly makes or misses or analysts that freak out if Tesla narrowly misses a quarterly delivery goal in the midst of a global pandemic, a war in Europe, and supply chain issues. Bears will continue to point to each obstacle, real and imagined, along the way, but never check the rearview mirror to see how far Tesla has come in such a short time.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Good point. I don’t know, but I would guess not adjusted just by looking at it. Still, even if Tesla only fell into the middle of this pack after adjusting for inflation it’s still impressive given most of their profits to date have come from selling hardware and how vertically integrated (capital intensive) the business is. As FSD profits and take rate increase and get added to automotive going forward...
-
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?
-
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 don't know if it's most, though clearly some people have had problems that seem related to poor engineering. I've been digging around online about this topic and a common theme is that it can be difficult to get Tesla parts, and there isn't a robust third-party repair network because repair manuals are essentially non-existent, and Tesla Service tends to focus on replacing entire assemblies rather than individual parts. This can become a big issue once the vehicle is out of warranty. Jason at Engineering Explained is a Model 3 owner, which he really likes, but describes how he's had difficulty getting certain parts here: https://youtu.be/A1M2OvvNT5U?t=310 He's clearly not a Tesla hater, but has a valid point that other automakers are a lot better about getting parts to customers.
-
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
-
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!
It does. Once in a while I piece together my top holdings to see what I actually own. If you stay within Nasdaq and S&P 500 funds you can have a crap ton of AAPL and MSFT and I just thought it was too much.
5.7% Cash
5.3% Treasuries <1yr & I-Bonds
3.1% Chubb (my employer)
2.5% Exxon Mobil
2.4% Apple
2.3% Chevron
2.3% Microsoft
1.9% Tesla
1.7% Silver
1.4% Gold
1.0% Amazon
0.9% United Health
0.8% British Petroleum
0.8% Travelers
0.8% Valero
I'm a bit energy heavy right now, but that looks good to me.
-
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/
“Concerns” about Tesla build quality have been pushed since the beginning and Tesla keeps chugging along, growing 50% YOY. Elon has acknowledged the need for more service techs to keep pace with the growth and it’s my understanding that it is improving.
-
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,
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.
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,
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.
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.
-
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,
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.
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?
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.
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.
-
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.
There are other top10 lists in the same article but you chose not to list them. Here they are:
The Cars with the Highest Owner Ratings: Tesla Model 3
The Brands with the Highest Owner Ratings: Tesla
Europe’s Top Selling Cars with the Highest Owner Ratings: Tesla Model 3
I assume you're a good person and just had a misunderstanding of the article.
-
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
-
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/
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.
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.
-
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.
That's not how the automotive market works. Some people prioritize reliability, many don't. The best tech doesn't always win, nor does best range or cost of ownership, etc. Brand, styling, functionality, etc. are often more important to consumers. Pickup trucks have the worst reliability but people keep buying them regardless, because they do things other vehicles can't, and because some people just like them for whatever reason. This is why I continue to think that Musk's recent antics are such a big deal long-term.
-
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/
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.
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 :)
-
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/
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.
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 :)
Media Bias / Fact Check lists Consumer Reports as Least Biased and High Factuality - https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/consumer-reports/
As already mentioned above, user reviews and user satisfaction isn't the same thing as reliability ratings.
-
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?
-
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?
Right now, yeah. Although you could probably play some optimization games with your tax withholding to get most of it faster. instead of waiting until you file your 2023 taxes.
In my understanding is that in 2024 the tax credit shifts to be a dealer rebate at the point of sale. But depending on how the US sourcing rules play out for the minerals in batteries a lot of this be ultimately be moot.
-
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.
Eh, the eletrek/zutobi list doesn't mean the opposite either. It's entirely possible for a car to both be ranked high on the owner rating list and be reliable.
-
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 :)
I'm FIRE with very low expenses (no loans or mortgage, paid off house) and low income since I only pull out what I need. The EV tax credit is not refundable and therefor useless to me. I'd rather buy an EV that's *not* eligible for the credit because this encourages the manufacturer to compete on top-line price.
-
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/
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.
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 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.
-
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,
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.
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?
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.
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?
-
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,
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.
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?
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.
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 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,
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.
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?
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.
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!!!!!!
Tesla built a better spoon?
-
Here’s the thing. No one is trying to convince you to buy a Tesla vehicle or Tesla stock.
No worries, I don't find anything here very convincing :) Also, I'm not trying to convince you NOT to buy anything, but...
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.
That's strange. I thought we were here to have an actual discussion about Tesla, not host a fan club meeting.
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.
I've used CR reliability ratings for decades and have found them accurate overall. Toyota usually ranks near the top. Our 14 year old Toyota, which we bought new, has around 120k miles. Other than routine scheduled maintenance we have only ever had ONE repair to the car when the alternator was failing. Not a single feature of the car has ever had an issue. No door handle issues. No suspension issues. No rattles. No moon roof issues. No leaks. No failing sensors. No paint issues (other than the scratches/dings we caused). Literally nothing has broken or failed. And we aren't very kind to our vehicles, they live outside in the elements. That's reliability. When I hear/read about some of the issues Tesla owners deal with, I think "no thanks." To be clear, this isn't unique to Tesla as other brands also have issues, it's just that I'm not interested in owning a vehicle that has lots of issues big or small. Been there, done that. Fortunately we aren't in the market for a new vehicle for at least a few years, so we'll wait until more EV models hit the market and some of the EV specific issues are worked out.
-
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.
-
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.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/30/business/ford-mustang-mach-e-pricing/index.html
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)
I agree with this point.
A number of options (I'm thinking of the FSD upgrade in particular) can be purchased as upgrades delivered by software after the point of purchase, which I expect gives folks a bit more room to keep the initial purchase price under the tax credit cap (and the price tag on a model 3 performance leaves JUST enough headroom to order in a color other than white and still qualify).
-
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?
-
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.
...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
-
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.
...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!
-
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.
...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...
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
...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.
-
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?
In the example given, the updated / improved door latch would fit the previous car just fine.
-
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?
I don't see how that would happen, nor see at inevitable based on the previous post. I think anything can become obsolete if abondonned by the company, but I don't see that happening with tesla vehicles.
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.
-
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?
-
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.
aside from info to the purchaser, I'd assume they would need that for themselves, and for liability issues.
forget tesla, inc, I think tesla the car knows what it's got going on and if something needed replacement, she would tell you what it was.
-
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.
Tesla may have the records themselves, but I doubt it's easy to get them or make sense of them. They certainly don't have the processes in effect to do so. They would have to release those records to O'Reilleys, Napa, independent mechanics, RockAuto etc. in an accurate and searchable way. The mere fact that you'd have to enter a VIN creates problems in and of itself, and then Telsa would also have to keep records of which new parts are interchangeable with the previous parts, on a scale that just isn't easy. I would love for them to do it; in theory it's possible but they would have to dedicate a lot of resources to the problem. Which they may do.
Say I want a door handle for a 2019 M3. Will the 2023 M3 door handle fit? It has the same holes in it, but the connector is different. Can I splice on a new connector? Is the new one a drop in replacement or do I have to source a 2019 M3? Will Tesla computer updates cause problems with this? There are various issues with questions like these in legacy auto repair world, the Tesla method this could create stacking problems with the way they do updates.
I speak from car repair experience. I would love to be proven wrong about the issues I am bringing in here. They certainly have an opportunity to change the way the market here works like they did by circumventing the dealership model. There's also the chance that the downsides are worth the upsides of quickly improving cars. For software it's an easy case, for long term mechanical machinery, I'm more hesitant to jump on board.
As an example, several years ago I had one issue repairing a 90's Sentra- basically the rotors that the books said that it had didn't fit it. All auto parts stores were confused, including myself. It turns out that on one run of the vehicles in Mexico they ran out of standard rotors and put bigger ones with calipers in them. That created a huge issue diagnosing and delaying the repair of this vehicle. I imagine that Tesla could create a searchable database that could connect a lot of this if they wanted. They would still miss stuff; maybe a 2023 M3 casting has a certain hole for a wire in it that a 2019 doesn't that isn't accounted for when determining legacy part fit. And the bigger question is; Would they share it? Historically, they have not been inclined to support third party repairs (in fact I suspect part of the reason is because they don't want to be liable for problems that I just described!)
-
... 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.
My speculation is that they won't be able to share this information as usefully as other automakers, not due to them not knowing which parts are with which VIN, but not having a good way of suggesting which part (other than a direct replacement) can be used for repair. And it would be silly of them to stock every iteration of every part for the repairable life of their vehicles.
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?
A little of both. What I mean to say is that Tesla does not do entire systems testing as much as other vehicles due entirely to their update design protocols. They literally cannot because they aren't going to send an entire new vehicle through an entire testing protocol for every inter-year update. They will certainly test components, but it's not the same. Whether or not this is a worse scenario I am not sure. Early in the Tesla days they were also promoting their shortened testing schedule, hinting that they were able to do so with simulation. Having been in product design (mountain bikes), this can only tell you so much. The real life experience of a mechanical system can give you wonderous insights that cannot be simulated.
I cannot find current actual Tesla test protocols for their entire vehicle (other than anti- and pro- clickbaity things), and this is something that they're improving anyway so the data I find from 2018 isn't as relevant (although they clearly didn't have enough cold weather testing for a long time)
-
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.
I had to go to Hyundai with my VIN to figure out what part I actually needed.
-
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.
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.
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).
-
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).
got it! I've had mine for about a month, still adjusting to it, but it is a lot of fun! My previous car was an LE 2013 corolla, so it is quite the upgrade. Lots of stuff I haven't dug into yet, like autopilot, summons, etc. But it is nice to turn on the heat with my phone, and then get a notification that the car is at my desired temperature before I leave the house! It's cold outside.
but regardless - hope you find a car you are happy with!
-
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.
-
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.
crap! if we wanna talk safety....
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-01-30/tesla-driver-family-northern-california-cliff-charged-attempted-murder
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.”
I'm going to get both my offspring into Teslas as soon as I can. Will take a while! Years, but its a goal. Either helping them with payments or upgrading my vehicle more frequently than needed and sending the older car downstream as it were.
-
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.
I often wonder about this. It doesn't seem to be all that clear cut though when you look at the data.
It's true that when you get into an accident, you're much less likely to die in a newer car:
Year: Percentage of deaths
1984 and earlier: 55%
1985-1992: 53%
1993-1997: 46%
1997-2002: 42%
2003-2007: 36%
2008-2012: 31%
2013-2017: 26%
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2018/05/11/newer-cars-much-safer-than-older-ones-nhtsa-says/?sh=1cb977052104 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2018/05/11/newer-cars-much-safer-than-older-ones-nhtsa-says/?sh=1cb977052104)
But a good portion of this is likely just due to the vehicle size arms race that has been going on for the last few decades. Vehicles have steadily become bigger and bigger and bigger. Larger vehicles kill occupants at a lower rate when they get in accidents.
Cars (total): 48%
Mid Sized Sedan: 43%
SUV (small two wheel drive): 42%
Pickup: 29%
SUV (total): 25%
minivan: 22%
- https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/study-shows-how-death-rates-for-drivers-vary-by-car-size/ (https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/study-shows-how-death-rates-for-drivers-vary-by-car-size/)
So a minivan from the late 90s is probably in the ballpark of the same level of crash death safety as a brand new small car. :P And then you have other problems with modern cars - they're harder to see out of and have increased blind spots, for example. You are more likely to survive a crash, but possibly more likely to get in a crash to begin with.
If you're concerned about safety and driving, then driving slower is more likely to benefit you than new vs old car. The risk of dying in a crash increases significantly with speed:
5% at 37 mph (60 kph)
10% at 43 mph (70 kph)
20% at 56 mph (90 kph)
- https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/cars-safe-speed-crashes-iihs-aaa-study/ (https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/cars-safe-speed-crashes-iihs-aaa-study/)
As does the liklihood of getting in a crash to begin with (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/Resources3/08%20-%20The%20Relation%20Between%20Speed%20and%20Crashes.pdf (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/Resources3/08%20-%20The%20Relation%20Between%20Speed%20and%20Crashes.pdf)).
There are a lot of things to consider when thinking about vehicle safety, I don't think it's as clear cut as 'use new car or die'.
Also because I couldn't find another place to put this and it made me laugh -
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/))
So 54% of fatal crashes were apparently caused by driverless cars and or gender neutral people. :P
-
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.
-
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.
LOL - makes me of a grade school thing....way back in they day.....I remember some obnoxious kids that we met and they would pull their eye lid down and say "look at the concern in my eye!". Being somewhat niave as a child. I thought that that little pink triangle at the inside corner of your eye and/or the other pink tissues under your lid was called concern.
-
Also because I couldn't find another place to put this and it made me laugh -
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/))
So 54% of fatal crashes were apparently caused by driverless cars and or gender neutral people. :P
Half a dozen gifs of people banging their heads against desks here.
(But yeah, it made me laugh too.)
-
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 :)
I missed 102, must have been busy with work. I did pick up 10 extra shares at 108, but then I didn't pick up the 1-2 each paycheck that week feeling I had already dipped. Should done it!
Now I'm more hesitant to get more shares!
-
Treasury has been persuaded that their initial SUV categories were pants-on-head stupid and are adopting the EPA definition.
This means that all Model Y, ID.4 and Ford EVs qualify under the $80k cap.
https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/manufacturers-and-models-for-new-qualified-clean-vehicles-purchased-in-2023-or-after
-
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.
-
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.
I guess that’s partly my point. Tesla is not slowing their production, so they can raise prices. They are ramping production as fast as they can with the existing models and factories. They are tweaking pricing to manage the demand backlog, but the mission is to get as many EVs into the world as fast as possible, which they are doing. Yes, the master calls for working down market, so the margins from higher end vehicles can fuel rapid growth and its working. I think on March 1 we’re going to hear about the next generation of more affordable vehicles and the announcement of 1 or 2 new gigafactory locations. Goal will remain 20 million vehicles per year (rate) by 2030. That’ll be tough, but if they’re even close it’ll be amazing.
-
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.
-
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.
Thanks for sharing your experience so far. No need to feel sheepish about buying a new vehicle after squeezing 19 years out of your Accord!
I’m 6’4”l and took my first ride in a Model Y in the last few months. I was amazed by the head and leg room in the back seat. It does not look that spacious from the outside, but I did not feel like I was being crammed into the back seat like I do in most small to mid-size SUVs.
Hope you get years of enjoyment!
-
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.
...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.
CNN: In boost for Ford and Tesla, Treasury changes EV tax rules making it easier to qualify as an SUV (https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/03/business/electric-vehicle-tax-rules-suvs)
-
Thanks for the well wishes @ColoradoTribe.
Financial optimizer me was overthrown by Yolo me in this case.
I’m 49 years old and can afford it so decided to splurge even though I would not typically spend that much on a car. I think a lot of others in similar situation will consider buying Ys and we will start to see a lot of them on the road.
-
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
-
Interesting twitter thread that discusses Tesla’s industry leading warranty reserve. I don’t know wether Tesla could ever convert this to “profit” from reserve or perhaps they just start reducing the amount they pay in each year per vehicle if this trend holds. Either way, Tesla is once again in a good position here relative to peers.
https://twitter.com/TeslaLarry/status/1622317952358924294?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1622317952358924294%7Ctwgr%5E644d623376b90dfc0eac5acca553044d47863689%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fteslamotorsclub.com%2Ftmc%2Fthreads%2Ftesla-tsla-the-investment-world-the-perpetual-investors-roundtable.139047%2Fpage-19958
-
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.
-
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.
It's really weird to me how much minivans have fallen off the market so much. They're so awesome... if sliding doors came on a supercar it would be seen as premium luxury. They have decent towing, amazing storage, unique looks, decent parking footprint, and on and on. I think in principle -PHEV- and in aesthetics -space ship- the Pacifica nails it, but I find it doesn't hit the practical marks worth the upgrade from my 2014 Oddyssey either). Heck, it only gets a few mpgs better on the highway, which is half the point of a minivan.
I almost just view the Y as a hatchback version of the 3. I would choose it over the 3 for that reason alone. Although I've never sat in a Y, maybe it feels quite a bit bigger in there than I'm thinking.
Also, these subsidy programs having tiered rewards that incentivize heavier vehicles makes no sense to me. It is so obviously the wrong approach that they look to be designed by people with incentives that don't align with the intent of the programs.
-
I see Tesla as more Elon Musk goodwill, it it goes down so does Tesla stock price
-
tesla has more than doubled from the recent low. What a roller coaster...
Must have been some serious winners and losers in those trades. Even just being a buy and hold spectator, tis a bit disquieting!
-
For every sober-eyed long term investor in Tesla there are like half a dozen meme stonk people, unfortunately.
-W
-
There's also professional shorts like Jim Chanos and Bill Miller who shorted at <$115. No doubt had to cover at some point.
In 2022, the Model Y was the highest selling vehicle in California. Model 3 beat the Camry. California is also the largest lifestyle truck market in the country and Cybertruck comes out this year. Analysts are pondering the dimes and quarters to add to their EPS estimates for 2023 and 2024 with Cybertruck, Semi, Megapack, commercial tax credits, premium connectivity at increasing fleet size, insurance, and whatever the gen 3 platform is.
Meanwhile, my Y continues to drive me around at Level 3 with end consumer tech. And that's not priced in at all. Cheers to long term investors.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FoIknxUXgAQyRLF?format=png&name=large)
-
@lemonlyman
I'm interested to hear what they are going to talk about on 3/1 investors day. :)
-
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.
-
“Tesla (TSLA.O) will open part of its U.S. charging network to electric vehicles (EVs) made by rivals as part of a $7.5 billion federal program to electrify the nation's highways to cut carbon emissions, the Biden administration said on Wednesday.
Such a move could help turn Tesla into the universal filling station of the EV era - and risk eroding a competitive edge for vehicles made by the company, which has exclusive access to the biggest network of high-speed 'superchargers' in the United States.
By the end of next year, Tesla will open 3,500 new and existing superchargers along highway corridors, as well as 4,000 slower chargers at locations like hotels and restaurants, to non-Tesla customers, the administration said.”
https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-open-us-charging-network-rivals-75-bln-federal-program-white-house-2023-02-15/
-
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.
That's a cool stat! while technically right, also seems to be a little cherry picking of numbers. Looks like Ford had a terrible year in 2022... one year prior their profit was $18B, more than TSLA this year. I haven't yet dug into F, but I assume 2022 they had a big expense or write off that will be a 1-time thing, because they had healthy revenue growth.
But agree without some serious growth from the legacy automakers, it won't be long before TSLA makes more profit from the 2 combined even on a good year.
-
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.
This one did not age well. Price on day this was posted was $125/share (Dec 22). Closing price today was $215/share.
My goal is not to call out any individual, but to once again point out that the history of this thread is chock full of care-bears expressing deep concerns over anything and everything Tesla related, most of it short-term noise.
My not advice, if you like the company, think EVs are the future, and that Tesla will continue to execute on their plan then buy and hold the stock. Stay away from margin and options. In the short-run the stock is too volatile, prone to manipulation, and often decoupled from company performance. In the long-run, the stock price will follow the execution and performance of the company.
Good luck to all!
-
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
Turns out disconnect was too strong to be sustained. SP on date of this post was $119 (Jan 8). Stock price at close today was $215. Performance and execution will win out in the end.
-
Curious to see what announcements will be made on Investor Day: Master Plan 3. Two days.
-
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?
-
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?
Didn’t say I disagreed or agreed in my post. 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. Your lack of understanding of this market and Tesla’s business has been on display since the inception of this thread, yet you persist. All you do is take the latest FUD article headline and come on her and post it as your concern du jour. As far as I can tell that is the extent of your expertise on the subject.
-
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.
Yet here you are, responding to every post I make. :)
Let's have an honest discussion, then.
1) Given the weekly China registrations, and comparing them with Oct/Nov numbers, do you agree that Tesla's sales growth in China is slowing down?
a) If so, should that be a concern for Tesla?
1. If it is a concern for Tesla, what can Tesla do to fix it?
2) What is your opinion on the Shanghai plant March "update?" Redesign of 3 or a new Model 2? Or just an assembly line upgrade?
3) What would be better for Tesla at this point? A Model 3 upgrade or a more down-market car?
-
Seems like they are exporting more than delivering from China. Glad they didn't show the next car. Just would have had an Osborne effect on sales. Line improvements are good news though. They went over manufacturing efficiency a lot on Investor Day.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-sold-74402-china-made-vehicles-february-2023-03-03/ (https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-sold-74402-china-made-vehicles-february-2023-03-03/)
I thought Investor Day was great! They announced a new factory in Mexico to build their next gen car and showed the strategy to build it at 50% less cost. $19,000 COGS with $25,000 sale price is 24% gross margin. Options and software will raise that. Also showed they're working on a van or larger SUV.
For earnings in 2023, they showed a graph of energy deployment. 16gwh cumulative with the chart moving to 35gwh in 2023. That's $10 billion in incremental revenue. Margins are yet to be seen, but expected to be high with the Megapack product. +$1 to EPS likely in 2023 from Energy that's not being modeled yet. Not just a car company anymore.
The bummer for me was hoping for production Cybertruck design, specs and prices, but they'll do a separate presentation I'm guessing.
Tesla released the slide deck.
https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/AA7YQM_Investor_Day_2023_Keynote_W9DARX.pdf?xseo=&response-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3D%22Investor-Day-2023-Keynote.pdf%22 (https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/AA7YQM_Investor_Day_2023_Keynote_W9DARX.pdf?xseo=&response-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3D%22Investor-Day-2023-Keynote.pdf%22)
-
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.
-
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.
Tesla Service will replace the factory tire for under $350....not saying that's cheap, but a far cry from $550 each. Treadwear rating is around 300.
Excellent top of the line touring tires are available for under $250/piece with 700 treadwear in factory size. He'll be better off going that route....half the cost and will last twice as long.
-
picked up 3 more shares today. Had delayed my regular purchase a bit because of the shoot up in price but that cooled a bit so caught up on my plans.
put 3x that amount into ibonds to balance out my post-tax investments/savings....
-
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.
-
The statistic I find astonishing is that Tesla made $35,00 more per EV than Ford. How the heck do you come back from that?
-
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.
EV market share (vs ICE) has been increasing quickly from a very low percentage. Ending 2021 with 8.6% global market share is impressive.
https://www.iea.org/commentaries/electric-cars-fend-off-supply-challenges-to-more-than-double-global-sales
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.
-
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
On a personal EV owner level, skyrocketing electricity prices is easier to swallow than skyrocketing petrol prices due to the higher efficiency, but I haven't seen any evidence/articles that point to EVs as an important part of EU resiliency in the present moment, although I am completely open to being proven wrong.
-
does tesla do roofs in europe? I did a google and saw some info about them starting in 2022, but nothing about it happening.
-
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.
-
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
That would not have impacted most of the top 10 car buying countries, only 2 of which are in the EU.
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/
-
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.
-
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.
No, I don't think it's *just* a climate thing. It gets uncomfortably hot over there, for sure. People are more acclimated to it though. When you are used to being in 68 degree A/C 24 hours a day, it makes dealing with 80 degree+ temps miserable. But when you live your whole life without A/C, you acclimate to the warmer temps. When we visit in the summer, we had to go to the store to buy a fan or I just couldn't sleep, even with only a sheet, or even no cover at all. And it isn't as easy to find a fan.....it's quite uncommon for them to even be used. I mean yes, the stores sell fans, but it's generally a really small section. My wife's parents have literally never owned a fan in their lives.
Also, I don't think AC will start becoming more common. Building construction is a lot different over there, most often solid block/concrete walls. Retrofitting AC would be a massive PITA, and most people not only would not want the expense, they just wouldn't want the cold air blowing, and certainly wouldn't want the massive electricity cost that would go along with it.
I've notice that since they tend to be well acclimated to heat, they get cold much easier at more moderate temperatures. I would be in shorts and a T-shirt and they would be in jeans, long sleeves, and reaching for a sweater/jacket.
And God forbid if you have to drive in a car over there in the summer. No A/C, and you sure as hell don't want to crack a window while you're moving. Germans have an irrational fear of drafts. Crack a window in a moving car and you're sure to come down with a life threatening illness.
An interesting article:
https://www.spiegel.de/international/draftophobia-blown-away-by-the-fear-of-air-a-407764.html
Of course, moving air, or a draft, outside is perfectly fine. But move over several inches across the threshold of a doorway and it's bad.
Many businesses do seem to be air conditioned, but it is used more sparingly.
-
I dunno. Like, don't get me wrong - the average North American way over air-conditions. Absolutely. But in our house the A/C doesn't even kick in until temperatures are above 26 in the summer. I ride my bike for hours in the scorching sun all summer long. I wrestle in a hot gi in an unairconditioned building with a bunch of other guys for Jiu Jitsu pretty regularly. But I can't tolerate a string of humid and hot nights at all. Humidity levels go up to 100% pretty much every summer night here, and you end up barely sleeping soaked in sweat and feeling like a zombie the next day.
I've read a lot of stories like this one (written last year) - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/07/20/europe-uk-air-conditioning-ac/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/07/20/europe-uk-air-conditioning-ac/)
That seem to indicate as heat starts to become as common in Europe as in North America A/C installation is skyrocketing. The IEA is estimating more than a doubling of A/C units in the EU by 2050. A/C can actually save lives - 15,000 people died in France during the heatwave in 2003 because of the heat. And they were acclimated.
-
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.
-
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
That would not have impacted most of the top 10 car buying countries, only 2 of which are in the EU.
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/
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.
Based on EV availability, popularity and such I don't think you can use car sales to conclude anything like that. For example, for all we know, 2022 EV sales would have been higher had there not been a war.
-
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.
This may be changing as heat waves edge into life threatening as opposed to uncomfortable
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_European_heat_waves#:~:text=From%20June%20to%20August%202022,%2C%20Portugal%2C%20on%2014%20July.
-
Now - this seems a little far fetched to me! Off the twitterverse...
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.
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...
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
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?
-
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)
this is interesting! thanks!
looks like some places could go 100% solar with ease. wonder how they might export large surpluses....and how tesla might fit into that, of course.
-
Now - this seems a little far fetched to me! Off the twitterverse...
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
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?
this persepctive was strange to me as I guess for the tesla future of autonomous taxi, I was more envisioning a fleet by tesla/other companies, rather than individual owners where your car just takes off out of the drive way to go to work on its own!
Seems like a lot of random variables such as general cleanliness, smokers (either owner or riders), etc.
Having recently used public transit/ubers for about 6 months in between cars, the autonomous, not needing to interact with drivers or added expenses of tipping, etc. would be extremely appealing. If you can super cheaply call an autonomous taxi actual car ownership will become more optional in more places. Given my area and my life, after 6 months car ownership did not seem very optional.
And cost of ownership is not like a BMW! and if someone has a tesla vehicle and tesla roof, this becomes an extremely economical per mile cost. I have tesla insurance and it is amazingly only 100/month. Similar to rates on a 10 year old carolla. When I first thought of upgrading from the carolla I priced out insurance for pricier new car and it was like 2-300/month. So I got another carolla that time. My insurance is going down every month as tesla gets used my safe driving.
One neat thing I learned about tesla charging is that you configure it to only charge when local electric rates are lower. I though that was super cool! Looking forward to getting the tesla roof so I won't care about that!
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.
-
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.
-
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
That would not have impacted most of the top 10 car buying countries, only 2 of which are in the EU.
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/
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.
I keep saying "global" and you keep saying "EU". Why do you exclude the rest of the world?
-
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.
-
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.
Was thinking about this financial side of the EV transition for ford yesterday - and speculating how much they'd be investing in EV right now if tesla wasn't putting the pressure on.
yeah.
-
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.
If we're using the SAE levels, then higher is more advanced, right? A Level 2 is more advanced than a Level 1 and a Level 3 is more advanced than a Level 2.
https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update
SAE's Level 3, as seen in the link, is only active "under limited conditions." If Tesla was Level 3, it would have similar restrictions. A Level 3 example from the SAE chart is "traffic jam" -- as you noted, it's good for rush-hour traffic on a highway.
Ignoring Level 3's "Look, ma! No hands!", the Merc can of course do everything a Tesla can do when in Level 2 "constantly supervise" mode -- change lanes, brake, accelerate, see emergency vehicles, etc. Do you know of any limitations compared with Tesla's FSD?
-
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.
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'll dig in a bit more when I get time, as I'd like to know how close other manufactures are.
Take a look at the video I posted and see if you know of other cars that have that capability.
-
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).
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?
-
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.
Interesting discussion on AI here, and can be interpolated to self-driving. Basically, the Tesla approach (no engineering compartmentalization of features, just massive data input) is the current way of thinking about AI, but doesn't have to be. I'm not an expert here, but after hearing the breakdown of how AI is working, I've reinforced my views that machine learning self driving is smoke and mirrors. The Mercedes approach seems to be more predictable and manageable.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2xRqt6pkQdJADMG4DWKaxL
Elon is a self-touted "first principles" thinker and is working very well to upend how we think about cars. He is optimizing cars. But he is not optimizing the human-city interface. He's just reinforcing that it is better for cars to be there and that humans don't belong.
-
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).
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?
It seems like Tesla doesn't want to go after Level 3 legal approval but only under strict, limited area, absurdly limited use case scenarios. Such as, no one in the entire country has access to it unless you live in Nevada and get in a traffic jam on the intestate on a nice sunny day under 40 mph.
From my understanding, Enhanced Auto Pilot will fully self drive exit to exit on interstate trips with the caveat being that the driver must be ready to intervene if needed. To me, that's more useful. Tesla FSD navigates destination to destination in the same manner....fully self drive including in the city but pay attention in case it's needed. I'm not sure if anyone else has that capability but, I'm not saying they don't....I *think* no one else is quite that advanced but not certain.
From a practical stand point(not legal, not regulatory), I think Tesla is as capable as Mercedes in terms of being able to fully self drive on the interstate, but can do so anywhere and at all speeds.
I'm taking a road trip in July and might try FSD for a month just to try it out. It's interesting technology and I'd like to be able to get some first hand experience with it.
-
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?
I'm not Tesla, but again, you can't be Level 3 certified until the car is 100% full autonomy capable. Mercedes *is* Level 3 capable in 0.1% use case(probably less), so they are 99.9% *not* Level 3 capable. I don't think Tesla is interested in being Level 3 in 0.1% conditions or less. They seem to be happier with 95% FSD capable anywhere and everywhere while working towards 100%?
Of all the driving done in the US, what percentage occurs only in Nevada at low speeds on the interstate in nice weather? It's probably far less than the 0.1% guesstimate that I gave, but it's close enough to illustrate my point that claiming Level 3 certified is basically a joke.
I also think Tesla is in many ways *not* close to actual FSD capability, as in, more than a few years? Will be interesting to see how things play out in upcoming years. Maybe Mercedes has it right and you need to start with a tiny bite and add to it over time rather than all or nothing.
-
I agree with this take. The autonomous car for a tiny area under limited conditions is a joke.
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.
Tesla is way ahead of anyone, many FSD videos of people going road trips hundreds of miles city and highway driving with no takeovers.
-
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.
1 in a trillion? C'mon. There are traffic jams 2x every weekday in Vegas on 15 and 515 and nothing I've read indicates it has to be sunny but, if it does matter, it's freakin' Vegas. It's sunny there a lot.
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.
There seems to be some confusion.
MB's self driving is not all-or-none. Level 3 doesn't have to be used; the MB Level 2 can be used instead on any highway, at any speed, under any conditions.
It should also be noted that, unlike Germany, SAE certification is state by state in the US. Tesla will not move to Level 3 nationally in one fell swoop. They'll have to apply to Nevada and California separately just like MB.
The real downside of MB's Level 3 is the cost. While it's only a ~$5k add on, it requires a $110k car around it.
-
Here's a rough breakdown of the SAE driving levels for reference:
(https://www.sae.org/binaries/content/gallery/cm/content/news/sae-blog/j3016graphic_2021.png)
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that there's a big difference in liability between L2 and L3. For Level 2 tech, the car company requires the driver to remain attentive and ready to take over control at any time. So if something happens, they can point the finger at the meat sack in the driver's seat. Going to L3 seems to imply that the meat sack doesn't have to remain attentive, and thus has far less liability should something occur.
-
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.
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.
Yes, glib enough comments are usually, technically right.
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.
FSD Beta versions that have been pushed out the last few years have been engineering steps. FSD hardware versions are engineering steps. FSD Beta already does practical Level 3 functionality. I would argue sectioning off bread and butter roads here and there for a L3 cert would be a liability step and not an engineering one. I'm not sure I've listened to enough AI podcasts to understand your real point here.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Obviously the car can also use normal turn signal stocks and volume knobs as well, but that didn't stop Tesla from nixing them for touch buttons. That doesn't mean it's the correct decision, though. And Tesla doesn't know (or seem to care) that people may be buying their cars in spite of this rather than because of it. It's not like they do A/B testing on any of their product decisions. They are basically designing their current cars on the optimism that humans won't need to be driving them in the near future, which makes them worse systems than those companies who make cars that are designed to be primarily driven by humans.
-
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...
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.
-
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...
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.
Money is one thing, data another. Tesla has the most data collection going on in the past, now and in the foreseeable future. They could certainly blow it somehow!
But the race is theirs to lose, for sure.
-
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
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.
-
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.
So Tesla isn't ready to certify its FSD for Level 3 or Level 4 because it's not reliable enough under certain conditions?
-
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.
-
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.
Future commentators will view Tesla's attempt to skip over Levels 3-4 as a mistake.
In tech it's always best to start with a usable minimum viable product and build out from there. Focus on the 80% use case and don't over complicate the design trying to implement the long-tail of features. So limiting the problem space to known streets/areas is actually really smart. They can incrementally add to the coverage area over time. At some point the vast majority of rides will be within service parameters. For a robotaxi service this is Good Enough... 95% of folks will opt for the cheaper driverless option, and the 5% of edge cases can fall back on human drivers.
Similarly, it's also wise to mitigate risks outside one's control. Car companies don't control the condition of roads, so limiting routes to places that are expected to work is a good thing. Again, this range can be increased as the technology advances.
All the autonomous car companies are slurping up tons of data. Quantity of data is less important than quality, so it's not clear to me who has the advantage here.
-
Time will tell but I’m pretty confident Tesla is in the lead. 10 years to master a few limited geographic areas at night does not seem to be on the right track.
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.
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.
-
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.
I think that this is a very valid and important point. Tesla has a (pretty long by this point) history of intentionally lying about their technological progress to investors in order to mislead them. Because of that, for non-fanboys it's difficult to take any of the company's comments at face value.
-
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.
Further commenting on the above, I think this reveals two important things:
First, Waymo (essentially Google) has incredibly deep and broad technical talent and essentially bottomless pockets. I was an engineer at Google for 10 years and the folks there are brilliant. I dealt with intense Imposture Syndrome while working there. Big data, data mining, machine learning, artificial intelligence, large complex systems at scale... these are core competencies for Google. That Waymo, after many years and billions of dollars invested, is still limited to a small subset of city streets shows how difficult this is. And I should add, the problem isn't just (or even primarily) technical in nature. Navigating the legal and regulatory environment is a major part of getting to fully autonomous. FSD keeps killing people, which doesn't bode well for Tesla.
Second, that Cruise, a subsidiary of GM, is essentially on par with Waymo shows that the big automakers are not the hopeless lumbering dinosaurs that some have made them out to be. They have deep pockets and can attract the right talent through direct hiring, acquisitions, or partnerships. A similar story is playing out in the battery space.
-
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.
Yes, once that happens... which is when, exactly?
AI is proving to not flesh out in the way that the optimists say. ChatCPT answers questions confidently incorrectly in unpredictable ways. It has no sense of the actual world... no real representation of objects and posession... it just produces word output based on millions of datasets of input, but it has no idea of what it's actually doing. Humans can now beat AI at GO again after taking advantage of AI's blind spot in the game, a blind spot that cannot be overcome through more data input.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/11/new-go-playing-trick-defeats-world-class-go-ai-but-loses-to-human-amateurs/
This idea that we just need a bit more data and a bit more use case scenarios to round out the capabilities of AI appears to have some serious issues in that we don't really know how the computer is reading objects. The computers can get confused by very mundane things. Mind you, they're way better than humans when they get it right (and this is the argument that proponents use... as long is it is several factors safer than humans it should be used).
-
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.
-
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
-
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
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.
-
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.
That's very true, but we aren't exactly talking about what current capabilities are as far as utility for customers. We are talking about what current development patterns will lead to the promise of full self driving. So... is a company with level 2 everywhere ahead of a company with level 4 in an extremely limited area? If you are to believe that more data in --> better performance than sure, Tesla is ahead. But more data in doesn't seem to pan out when talking about ai capabilities (see my reference to humans being able to beat AI at GO again because of the limitation of how AI can interpret the input, with no solution in sight)
-
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.
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.
-
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.
Starting this year, California has banned the use of the term "full self driving" for cars that aren't.
-
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.
"Let's do apples-to-apples..." You claim a direct comparison report with Basic Autopilot (completely different legacy software product) and other L2 systems means FSD Beta is also behind other Level 2 systems? Consumer reports doesn't make that claim. You did. I wasn't aware Ford BlueCruise could recognize a stop light. When did Super Cruise start making left hand turns in intersections? FSD Beta gets updates regularly (because data) including a unified road stack for city and highway just in the past few weeks. From release notes, "- Improved recall for close-by cut-in cases by 15%, particularly for large trucks and high-yaw rate scenarios, through an additional 30k auto-labeled clips mined from the fleet."
Autopilot is cruise control with lane keep and follow distance features. But apples-to-apples I guess they're functionally the same on L2 because former Google engineer with no biases told me so.
-
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?
-
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?
Where are you going with this? None of us is invested in musk's soul! Which I fear may be doomed because he is an asshat for sure!
We invested in a company that has created it's own markets and may or may not grow into a powerhouse lasting decades or more. Musk didn't invent telsa, he bought his phony "founder" status, and I hope telsa will continue to do well long after elon is gone........deposed, retired to mars, whathaveyou. That said - he has some very magical visionary capabilities that tesla has greatly benefitted from.
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 tesla is so profitable at this point is what is really impressive right now - and that tesla has been able to make itself profitable while developing the tech that can then be used in dozens if not hundreds of ways in the next decade or two is what is going to make any other things have a chance.
That they went all in for the semi this early shows that they are targeting CO2 sequencially. Why else veer into the semi at this stage?
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.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1185535/transport-carbon-dioxide-emissions-breakdown/#:~:text=Medium%20and%20heavy%20trucks%20are,polluting%20global%20road%20freight%20is.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
meanwhile.....
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-01/the-carbon-footprint-of-mcdonald-s-menu-very-big#xj4y7vzkg
-
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
-
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?
also found this of interest!
IDRV - iShares Self-Driving EV and Tech ETF
-
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.
Maybe, maybe not. Hear me out. The mental health in this country is declining- especially in young people. One possible reason for that is kids don't really play outside anymore. They certainly don't normally just wander around neighborhoods like they used to in most of the country. Parents don't like their kids playing in the streets... largely because it feels dangerous (pedestrian deaths have gone up!). There's also nowhere to go. Living in a suburban neighborhood of the 21st century... there's no hangouts anymore. It's just houses. Fewer public parks, town squares and the like. Modern cities are designed around cars, and kids don't have cars. They just revert to social media.
There's also a lot less intermixing of social circles. In ye olden times, in walkable cities, people all used to have to at least pass by different folks. Currently we hide behind 15" touch screens in our 2 ton EVs, driving to and from isolated social bubbles, most people rarely interact with the "other" anymore, except in the abstract social media and 24 hour news cycle. This has been so normalized by current generations in North America that we don't even think that it can be different! But back to the point... intermixing of different social classes helps people empathize with others better. Can't really happen in cars. And that kills public conversation, or at least makes us less likely to take our social media news filter with a grain of salt.
All of this is to say that I think that having a country designed around cars is a really big problem. It's not just some fringe passion; It changes how we live as a culture. I think that putting our weight and effort behind companies like Tesla is well intentioned but possibly disastrous because we're missing the big picture. If we head down this path in 50 years we may look back and realized that we made a huge mistake. And I think that's a real possibility.
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.
-
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.
Thanks for the opportunity to address this directly.
IMO what tesla may accomplish as a profit driven organization is not the same the things as addressing the car culture you call out. Those are things that need to come from a community and/or government perspective. So it seems unfair and/or disengenious to pivot to that in a discussion about tesla.
I do think tesla is just getting started, and in ways that may address these concerns - such as reconfiguring public transportation making it more timely, reliable, 24 hours, and maybe on demand. (or may not! who knows! but autonomous bus routes seem easy peasy after FSD is done....but maybe they only want to do taxi? who knows!) But it would still be up to communities to adopt and purchase whatever offerings there are. And I don't see how tesla would ever get to there - offering buses/minivans to the public - without being here first - with cars and a profit center.
And it's really nice to think about everyone being healthy and active in nice places and walking and biking everywhere. That is the fantasy of young healthy people. Some people are old, sick, disabled, indisposed, injured, having a super crampy period. And they need to go to doctors' offices, and pharmacies, and food stores when they don't want to and don't feel up to it. And sometimes it is brutally cold out, or brutally hot out, or snowing or sleeting or raining or hailing and people still need to get to work or get fired. And some areas are dangerous - from crime, or industrial areas where foot traffic is unexpected and not safe, and these may occur between where a body lives and where they need to go to work, shop, or visit family and friends.
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!
-
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)
-
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)
thanks!
-
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!
Thanks for the response.
I don't hold Tesla accountable, and I do think that Ford, GM, etc are *significantly* worse, in that the automotive industry has cause these problems in the first place. They are quite directly the cause of our urban sprawl through lobbying and lying to the public. But, I group Tesla in with them. Not as bad as them, but more of the same. They're perpetuating our needs for cars- we still need huge swaths of tar oil slicks just to move around.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU
I totally agree that this should be a community thing as well! So why am I even in a Tesla investor's thread talking about this? You should invest in things that you believe in. And as a collective society, we put our $ where our priorities are. I think that Tesla, compared to GM, is quite a good company to own part of, or at least could be argued that. I think Tesla, compared to all of the other options for making our lives better, is more likely to be a poor investment. And by investment here, I'm not strictly talking returns, I'm talking about where we put our effort, time and money as a society. The availability of EVs has now led to national legislature and goals (Inflation Recovery Act) that are putting a lot of money and backing into EVs. That's almost certainly credited to Tesla. What if Tesla, as a concept, had been a company that invented a better rail system, or was a city who developed old school zoning with no car based limitations (street setbacks, parking, stroads, etc.). What if those concepts were developed over the last decade and worked into the IRA instead? I have no idea if that's an even reasonable though, maybe a pipe dream... but I think the people who support Tesla would be receptive to it in general.
-
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're being extreme short sighted here.
I live in a very walkable city, I have always lived in a walkable city, so I can't comment on suburban living having never lived in one. My city it not some modern utopian walkable parkways all over. I live in an area where most buildings were built before WWII. It's still a hardship to live without a car, and I've done it at several points in my life in different neighborhoods.
Maybe 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. Especially in the US. 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 above
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.
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.
-
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 above
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.
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.
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.
-
Meanwhile!
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.
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!
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.
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.
-
Meanwhile!
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.
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.
Interesting thoughts, thanks for this POV! I think I do have some fun trying to bargain shop. :) And I have learned more about stocks in general.
So fun and educational! Worth the cost of admission.
-
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 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.
My 2 cents is that a transition to EVs would allow people to maintain their current commuting/suburban lifestyles while moving somewhat in the direction of environmental responsibility. In theory at least! It's a small, incremental change that doesn't solve 90% of the problems cars cause, but we can at least imagine it happening.
The walkable cities change would require lots of people to cooperate (impossible?) to buy large tracts of existing property, tear it to the ground, and redevelop it. Then it would require many times more people to want to live in walkable places instead of suburbs and exurbs. A whole massive cultural shift is required just to get the concept off the ground. Additionally, the walkable cities could be perceived as "ghettos" - as they were in the 20th century - if issues such as crime, vandalism, litter, homelessness, public transit, and mental illness are not addressed in addition to changing out the infrastructure. Arguably, our failure to address these underlying issues is what led to sprawl in the first place! Finally, the impetus for walkable cities is decreasing as the work-from-home trend continues, and as same-day deliveries from online shopping platforms expand. Bottom line: a shift to walkable cities is a tall order!
-
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
Interesting video. Both systems did well, but FSD still required manual intervention (at stoplight and parking at destination). Waymo got a little confused at the end of trip, expect they will continue to iron out such issues. What's kinda lost in the video is that there's a person in the Tesla's driver seat (not pictured) whereas there's literally no one in Waymo's driver seat -- it's actually driving itself, which means it drives itself to pickups and is a true robotaxi. On the surface this may seem like a minor difference, but it's actually a huge deal that Waymo has the confidence and regulatory approvals to drive people around without a human driver.
-
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.
The "etc" I used was to imply that it's more than just lidar. There's a suite of sensors that most companies use on their autonomous vehicles. Each technology system is good at different things, and there's also some redundant overlap in the capabilities. Tesla has chosen a different path and is using cameras only as far as I know. That is way cheaper and less intrusive to implement, but it may have limitations or safety drawbacks too.
-
welly, I put in a good til cancelled limit order for 2 shares based on the small amount of cash I had available for the purchase. Meanwhile.....initiated a transfer of 50 extra from my checking as it seemed super doubtful order would go through at that level. after 2/3 days adjusted the price up and my purchase went through today.
Woohoo! 2 more tesla shares into the kitty!
And 2k into ibonds. Just putting that out there so no one thinks I'm being too risk, ;P
-
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.
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.
sorry I was unclear! I was just referencing your current vehicle, if it could do road trips when all the tesla chargers are opened up for everyone.
-
I don't think the majority of existing stations are going to be opened to everyone. There are only a small handful open now, and I suspect it will be limited to stations that aren't very busy. Tesla will be building new stations that are open for all cars, and they seem to build stations faster than anyone else, so I'm sure it will help. But I'm pretty sure it won't be anything at all like suddenly having access to the entire network.
We've done a good handful of 200ish mile trips with the Kia. It has worked, but even with such relatively short and limited trips, there have been challenges, such as arriving to a charge station that is completely out of order. So you really *have* to have a backup, and probably a 2nd backup. We've gotten to the backup plan and getting a charger to work can be hit or miss. The screen and/or charging app can be glitchy. We've had to change spots a couple times to get chargers to work. Other times we arrive, plug in and charge no problem. So roadtripping works, but it isn't 100% carefree i.e. just jump in the car and go. You have to plan charge stops with plenty of reserve and make sure there are multiple locations within range.
Knowing what we know now, we probably would have bought a used Tesla when we bought our Kia Niro. It's a good car, seems well built, quiet, runs and drives great, plenty of power, and pretty good efficiency for a small SUV/crossover type vehicle, but the charging network is just night and day. It's not even remotely close to how extensive, reliable, and well integrated Tesla's ecosystem is. We had to experience the difference first hand to really understand. When I went to test drive a M3 and just pushed the charge icon on the display, it was incredible to see the vast network of chargers that were in range based on the current rate of charge of the vehicle. I don't really see anyone catching up or even getting remotely close for perhaps 5-10 years, if then?
-
IRS has released an updated list of EVs and PHEVs that will qualify for either full ($7500) or half ($3,500) of the federal tax credit going forward. There are 13 vehicles that qualify for the full credit. In Q1 Tesla produced approximately 111,000 qualifying vehicles (Model Y and Model 3 variants) and all other makes and models accounted for approximately $28,500. So, Tesla currently has 80% market share for vehicles that qualify for the full tax credit going forward. I don’t see that market share decreasing while Austin gigafactory is still ramping. Also guessing the CyberTruck will qualify for the full credit same as the F-150 Lightning.
-
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.
I meant the first use of 4680 cells is underwhelming. The 4680s have been touted as a game changer.
-
Price for the Y just dropped another $3k: $46,990 for the AWD (with 4680), $49,990 for LR (older cell design).
Starting to get attractive. A couple more price drops like this and I'd be interested, except Mrs C has said there is no way she will ever drive or even ride in a car associated with Elon Musk, so I guess buying a Tesla is a non-starter.
-
Six price cuts since the start of the year is not going to be good for Telsa's profit margins. But it should be good for overall electric car adoption.
A year ago it was an exciting event if I saw even one Telsa in my small noncoastal american city. Last week I set a "high score" of five Telsa's in the course of a single 20 minute commute. And yesterday saw four just walking out to my car in the parking lot.
The question is whether the current stock price had the assumption that Tesla could maintain '21/'22 margins long term baked in or if selling a lot more cars at lower profit per units is enough to justify the current valuation. I don't know the answer.
-
We see a fair number of Tesla's around Boise, but that's been true for several years now. But now we're seeing a growing number of other EVs: Mach e, Ionic 5, Bolt, BMW, and even a few Rivian's. Rivian is interesting to me, though I have doubts about their long-term survival. They're building a service center here in Boise (https://boisedev.com/news/2023/04/18/rivian-boise/), so that's interesting. Boise is a prime location for their target demographic, urban and outdoorsy overlander types.
RE Tesla price drops: This may be in response to losing some of the federal tax credits (https://electrek.co/2023/04/18/tesla-slashes-price-again/).
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.
Which is why -- being FIRE with "low income" -- the tax credit is really a negative for me. I don't want to pay prices that have been increased with the assumption that this will be offset by a non-refundable tax credit. So hoping these largely go away before we're in the market for an EV.
Finally, interesting commentary from Electrek relevant to this thread:
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.
-
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)
Tech-rich vechiles 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.
-
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%
-
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%
How’s the Tesla performance over the past 2, 3, 4 and 5 years? Investors are in it for the long haul. Tesla is up 9X since the start of this thread in 2018. While you’ve been expressing an ever evolving list of “concerns” Tesla has created value for shareholders. Plenty of folks cashed out and retired early thanks to Tesla. You’ll forgive me if I don’t credit you for your insight when it comes to Tesla. Anybody listening to you 5 years ago missed out on huge gains
Tesla is now selling Model Ys for the same price they sold for 8 qtrs ago. Production of Model Y has gone 5X over that same span. OEMs offer discounts all the time to match supply and demand, its just obscured by the dealer network. Tesla’s automotive margin is still best in the business by a wide margin.
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.
Sure, I’d love it if Tesla could continue 50% YOY growth and maintain 29% margins, but that’s not realistic, especially in this macro environment of rising interest rates and recession fears. We’ll have to settle for selling 1.8-2.0 million EVs in 2023 at 15-20% margin.
Lost in the noise about Tesla price drops is the rapid growth in the Energy business. Energy storage deployment was up 360% YOY with healthy 10%-11% margins. TE is expected to grow to rival automotive sales. Need for storage is inexhaustible for the next decade at least.
CT deliveries to start end of Q3. Gen 2 vehicles late 2024. Tesla will continue to grow cash reserves while also pouring money into R&D and growth. Tesla will continue to reduce production costs and grow homemade 4680 cell production. Tesla Energy will rapidly grow with a new megapack battery factory going up in Shanghai this year. The competition will be lucky if they don’t go bankrupt while transitioning from ICE to EV, and trying to achieve scale. Tesla will continue to gobble up market share. Nothing about these price cuts effect Tesla’s ability to execute on its long-term plans. The future for long-term investors remains bright.
I’ve been down this road before and listened to all the “experts” warn of Tesla’s imminent demise and the coming competition from 2013-2019. Six years wondering the wilderness while Tesla SP drifted sideways or worse. But all the while I knew Tesla was executing, growing, laying the foundation. The spring is being compressed again.
-
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)
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 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.
It's tricky for cars, though. You don't want to be driving and digging through touchscreen menus at 75mph, obviously.
Our Chevy Bolt has normal car controls. We like that. Has decent range. Not good fast DC charging. It literally is a very usable $25k EV (we paid less in 2021).
-
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.
Tesla 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.
-
lol!
looks like I should have waited for my 2 shares purchase!!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
Tesla 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. No kidding. 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.
Would you rather have 30% of 3 million or 15% of 20 million (numbers for illustration only). Of course you’d rather have the latter even though your “share” is smaller or shrinking. Tesla is increasing its share of the only pie that matters, total vehicle market. This has been explained to you before.
Tesla is not a luxury car producer. 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. After federal tax credits and before state credits, you can pickup a model 3 for ~$36k and a Model Y for ~$40k. So, Tesla is offering a premium, best in class EV for less than what the average consumer is willing to pay for a new vehicle today. Can we please retire this tired trope about Tesla being a luxury vehicle company?
Bottom line. Tesla will produce between 1.8 and 2 million EVs this year and sell them all for a profit (15-20% margin). Every other EV sold in the US this year will be sold at a loss. The auto industry is cyclical. People defer big purchases when interests rates rise and times are uncertain. Tesla is not being uniquely affected, but is in a better position (margins, low debt, cash reserves, etc.) to weather any macro conditions than any of its “competitors”. Unless Ford has a rapidly growing and profitable utility scale energy storage business I’m not aware of?
-
Tesla is not a luxury car producer.
https://electrek.co/2023/01/11/tesla-becomes-top-luxury-auto-brand-us/ (https://electrek.co/2023/01/11/tesla-becomes-top-luxury-auto-brand-us/)
https://www.insurancenavy.com/questions/is-tesla-considered-a-luxury-car/ (https://www.insurancenavy.com/questions/is-tesla-considered-a-luxury-car/)
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a42938734/tesla-best-selling-luxury-brand-2022/ (https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a42938734/tesla-best-selling-luxury-brand-2022/)
Tesla is absolutely a luxury car. They don't offer an inexpensive bare bones model, all versions are chock full of luxury shit that nobody needs.
The cheapest car that Tesla offers here in Canada is the model 3, which is $54,990 for the 'barebones' version - a full 10 grand more than the average MRSP for a car sold in this country. There's also the 'performance' model 3, retailing for 73 grand . . . the model Y (70 - 76 grand), the model S (117-144 grand), or the model X (131 - 144 grand). By any measure I can think of, they are 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.
Correct, Tesla's EV market share in the US has declined. It now has competitors.
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.
No one has denied that EVs will take market share from ICEs.
What 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.
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.
This has been stated before but average is not median. The median household income in America is $70k. The average is $102k.
-
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.
Tesla 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.
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, 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.
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.
No one has denied that EVs will take market share from ICEs.
What 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.
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.
This has been stated before but average is not median. The median household income in America is $70k. The average is $102k.
A lot of deflection in this response. 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.
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?
-
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.
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.
The point is that Tesla stock is priced as a high growth, high profit margin, company. If it can't maintain both of those attributes, then the stock price will fall, which we saw today (-9.75%).
The company won't collapse, they'll sell more and more cars each year, the stock price won't drop to 10, but they're facing growth limits like every very profitable company has in the world.
-
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.
Yes.
The point is that Tesla stock is priced as a high growth, high profit margin, company. If it can't maintain both of those attributes, then the stock price will fall, which we saw today (-9.75%).
The company won't collapse, they'll sell more and more cars each year, the stock price won't drop to 10, but they're facing competition and growth limits like every very profitable company has in the world.
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.
I'll refer you to GuitarStv's post above. ^^^
Even Teslarati got into the cheering. But what do 'KBB' and 'Automotive News' and 'Car & Driver' know, right?
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-wins-luxury-crown-kelley-blue-book-2023-brand-image-awards/
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.
Lol. Are you the Tesla hater then?
I'm also not sure it behooves (some) stans to claim that Tesla isn't a luxury brand because then it becomes just another EV in a sea of them. This is why Honda and Toyota have separate luxury brands. When people think of Toyota, they think function. When they think of Lexus, they think form.
-
LMFAO!!!
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)
Print
By Emily Bary
musk will do whatever it takes now ><
rest easy tesla holders!
-
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.
-
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?
Lack of access to a good metric doesn't justify using a bad metric.
-
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?
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.
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.
Thanks, and that aligns with reading I've done about the 4680.
The initial use of them doesn't meet the promise of greater range/less weight. The Model Y using them is not significantly lighter than the LR version, I've read, and does have less range.
Don't know. Too early to tell, I guess. No way to know if they are less expensive to make yet. The AWD Y is a bit cheaper for less range and slower charging. That's all we know.
Bringing down battery costs by 50% would be a game changer. I hope that does happen.
Re: average price of new cars - it includes pick-up trucks, yes?
-
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 . . .
-
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.
Looming recession, lots of layoffs in high paying sectors, drastically higher finance rates have affected affordability? Remember, most people who buy new cars can't actually afford to buy them, they *have* to finance.
I don't think Tesla lowered prices because of competition or EV market share. Honestly, there just isn't an EV offering that competes will with Tesla IMO.
If Tesla losing EV market share was somehow directly correlated with Tesla somehow actually performing poorly, that would matter. It is basically mathematically impossible for Tesla to not lose EV only market share as we move forward, even if they go on to become the largest and most profitable company in the world by 2030, which is why I think EV only market share is an almost meaningless metric moving forward. I just don't see how that metric matters, at all, in terms of signifying how well Tesla is performing.
Tesla increased their share of total US light vehicle sales by 50% last year. If that doesn't strike you as significant and meaningful, not sure what will.
Rates will remain high for much(all?) of the year. I can see the scenario where there may not be much upside for Tesla share price *this year*, but with CT and the next gen vehicle in the pipeline, it sure seems like there is a definite path for massive sustained growth, cost reduction, and profitability.
It is absolutely fair to say that lowering prices hurt margins.
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?
-
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?
Investors certainly think it's a bad result, with a ~10% drop post earnings. Profit and margins aren't absolutes, they must be evaluated relative to current valuation. On this very thread theses to support a much higher than usual PE ratio included predictions that demand would continue to outpace supply, and that Tesla would be able to maintain margins by cutting costs while undercutting competitors. Yet we're seeing what looks like a demand problem, lower margins, and lower market share. In no way does this mean Tesla's business is in trouble, but this misses the point of this thread, which is whether or not Tesla is a good investment. And it doesn't matter if TSLA was a good investment 2 or 5 years ago, implicit in the question is if TSLA is a good investment right now. Even for those who invested many years ago and are sitting on large gains (to be clear, good for you!), you still have to ask if continuing to hold TSLA is a good investment going forward.
-
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:
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 🌎💙
Money isn't everything. And money is nothing without our health and the health of the planet.
-
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:
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 🌎💙
Money isn't everything. And money is nothing without our health and the health of the planet.
Yes, and what's best for the planet isn't necessarily best for Tesla investors. It's good that multiple EV makers are battling it out on price and features. This will drive innovation while lower prices, thereby making EVs more attractive to the masses, which is good for the climate. But by definition, this means lower margins and lower profits for EV companies, including Tesla. Which is why I'm rooting for all companies while also cheering that Tesla is having to contend with real competition and less profitability.
-
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%
Cherry picking. You know better than that.
-
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.
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.
Producing fewer, larger batteries should be noticeably cheaper once production has ramped up and they get the bugs worked out.
https://history-computer.com/teslas-2170-vs-4680-batteries/
Tesla also announced a lot of planned internal improvements when they (tabless design, silicon, dry process cathode production, etc.) However, it seems they are having trouble with something in their 4680 transition - despite being about 5x the volume of a 2170, I'm seeing reported capacity values only about 2x that of a 2170. Hopefully it's just temporary.
https://history-computer.com/teslas-2170-vs-4680-batteries/
-
From your article dated 2/25/23:
“The Tesla 4680s is expected to increase the range of Tesla EVs by as much as 54%. What’s more is that these batteries will reduce the total weight of EVs. This, paired with the sheer amount of mAh in the 4680s, will boost acceleration while reducing costs and increasing sustainability. In short, the 4680 was designed with power, precision, profit, and the planet in mind.
While the 4680s have yet to be rolled out across the full line of Tesla EVs as initially planned, they have begun to hit the streets in small numbers in Model Ys assembled at the Texas Gigafactory. Initial impressions have been nothing short of remarkable. Drivers lucky enough to get their hands on the wheel of a 4680-equipped Model Y have praised the charging speed, the vehicle’s acceleration, and the maximum distance they can get per charge.“
Oh my.
-
this is where my concerns for the company/investment come in:
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
Other than that - no real concerns on competitors, unless musk continues to drop the ball/alienate potential customers. It is a positive that the field is opening up with more options. Competitors, volatility, that is expected.
Will tesla outperform or underperform the market on a 5-10 year time frame? My bet is outperform. If it is 10-20% below market on that timeline, I'm still ok with my investment as I am super into the mission and tesla leadership in making mass EV sales a reality.
Musk just needs to stop drinking his own coolaid.
-
I’m a a-hole for posting this.
-
Interesting chart I saw. Legacy Q1 results looked pretty good when considered in a vacuum. However, Q12023 is being compared to abysmally horrible Q1 2022 numbers(for legacy). Most legacy are down significantly compared to 2 years ago.
-
Legacy is intentionally restricting supply. They've learned you don't make money overproducing and discounting.
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.
-
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.
It's not how he's acting - it's was is spewing out of his mouth. He thinks he is a celebrity while most CEOs don't court the limelight. Some might actively court the shadows instead. maybe he is a celebrity of a sort - seems to have a lot of fanboys?
As I posted before, the board is important here, and shareholders are on them about making sure the board does not become an elon puppet show. It is a concern. But Tesla as a company is important imo, and their mission and accomplishments, and the other sectors they are operating in. Some other company putting out elecgtric vehicles is not in that realm. Tesla make the EV market profitable, single handedly, and I will never buy into an ICE company again even for an EV. Just. Won't. They could have turned things around a decade ago but they chose not to, and to continue to contriubte to the problems, and neither the ICE nor the other 100% EV manufacturers would be where they are today without Telsa breaking the headwinds.
But I wouldn't mind if musk was ejected. He really is over committed anyway, so I don't see how the 10% of his active management time that he can spare to tesla can be all that valuable? Seems that twitter and spacex taking up much more time so not sure what he is contributing to tesla in terms of oversight or vision. I also abhor him as a person, but as mentioned, the other CEOs are just quieter, no evidence they are not on a par, or worse.
On another note: I have been boycotting Koch brother industries for about a decade, maybe more. This came up in discussion with some people and someone else - with very strong, leftist, opinions was very eager to to do so too - so I forwarded the link of all the products on the koch boycott list - and they immediately replied with "OH! no, that is too hard! can't do it". I was floored, really. All their vocal outrage but won't change paper towel brands.
Telsa, as a company, is trying to be as green as possible. Adding solar components to all their charging stations, Refining the batteries to be less harmful environmentally along with the recycling of the battery components, etc.
Not trying to change your mind, your feelings are very strong here and I respect that, and we are all free to purchase whatever vehicle we choose, and any EV is better than an ICE. I am just outlining why my support for tesla the company is separate from my disapprobation for musk himself. Koch industries by comparison has no environmental committment, is doing nothing good for the planet and no intention to do or at least try to do good.
How musk reconciles siding with a political party that actively disputes global warming is beyond me. And not just the party - but the fringe conspiracies theories of the worst of them. My mind cannot even follow those mental gymnastics.
I'm sure his role as a visionary was very useful to tesla - but to my mind I don't think it is any longer, I don't see him spending much time on tesla, and I would welcome his replacement as ceo at this juncture. My hope is that the board remains independent of musk so that someone is assessing when the musk liability exceeds the asset that something is done.
-
None of that matters. As long as putting money into Tesla via products or stock enriches Elon Musk, Tesla is a non-starter. And I do view the people that work for him as enablers. Those employees have an obligation to force him out or quit. And if they aren't doing one or both of those things, their livelihoods do not matter to me.
-
None of that matters.
Nah, I think it's your ranting that doesn't matter.
Musk is definitely an asshole, but apparently you're pretty special too.
-
Did y'all see that Pete got one?
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2023/04/27/why-buy-model-y/
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/the-model-y-experiment/
"Why would you give Elon your money? He’s evil."
Ya, that one gets me, too.
I had high hopes for the Model Y with 4680 cells. Not panning out. The LR version seems a far better value.
I see the RWD Y using the LFP battery is available in Canada. Nice.
-
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%
-
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.
-
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.
I’m sure Honda and Toyota beat Tesla’s 10-year return of 2,900% though, right?
-
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.
-
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.
someone is pretty lucky they didn't take that bet!
-
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.
Annie Duke writes about such decisions in Thinking In Bets from a professional poker player's perspective. She notes that for pros, it is impossible to tell whether a decision was good or bad based on the outcome of any particular poker hand. It is possible to make the right decision and lose a hand and it is possible to make the wrong decision and win a hand, all for reasons that are invisible or uncontrollable. The right and wrong decisions in this context are the decisions that would lead to profits if made over the course of hundreds or thousands of hands, not the decision that wins or loses a particular hand.
If a decision process resembles poker (having incomplete information, chaotic systems, and randomness as factors) then it is a fallacy to look at any one decision outcome and say that the decision was good or bad. Poker players have to think statistically, plan on making thousands of small bets if they are to see results, and focus on the avoidance of fallacies. A fallacy in this context is "resulting," which is using a particular result to determine the quality of the decision process.
According to Duke, the worst thing a poker player can do is develop a sort of superstitious heuristic rule based on the outcome of a couple hands, and to decide this is the Truth forevermore. For example, some players always keep playing if dealt a particular pair of cards because they believe this is a winning strategy. They do this because they won a couple of hands that way sometime in the past, and five or ten losses will not undo the belief formed by those two hands which may have occurred years ago.
In terms of a decision to overweight and de-diversify one's portfolio with a particular tech stock in a particular year, it's appropriate to ask yourself questions like:
- Would I probably beat the index if I made thousands of decisions like this over long periods of time, for example, exclusively buying stocks with a PE ratio of 400 or investments that had zoomed up in past years?
- Would I go broke more often, or in more possible future worlds, pursuing this strategy than if I just stuck with index investing?
- Am I committing the fallacy of resulting, when I say doing this one simple thing worked great in the past and conclude it is the Truth that will work in the future?
- If this decision was a process that I was committed to repeat, what other investments would I have to buy into to be consistent? Speculative investments like Dogecoin had some stellar years too.
It's the answers to these questions that make me say it's unwise to overweight Tesla. I don't know that TSLA's stock price is going down, because that depends on a lot of unknowable factors. I do know this idea of overweighting media darling tech stocks has a different and more variable risk and return profile than I'm pursuing.
More importantly, what's the plan here? Even if TSLA achieves world domination, they merely become Toyota, and TM sells for 10x earnings. Tesla's selling for 51x earnings today, and it is likely their earnings will decline because the price cuts have removed the majority of their margin. So we have a 51x company about to become a triple-digit PE company that strives to someday become a 10x company. We have a company with a $551B market cap that hopes to someday be like the market leader with a $193B market cap. Are these good reasons to take on additional non-systemic portfolio risk? In poker terms, that's a big call to make on a weak hand.
-
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.
-
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 saw that! Did you see the acutal clip not the write up about it? Very disturbing.
knock knock....tesla board....time to talk! He can be as dismissive as he likes about his money....but seems he isn't getting that tesla isn't privately owned like twitter.
I mean, true mental illness is a real possibility here, imo. Or just edging near to psychosis via lack of sleep....it was not a good look - thought he might have started disassociating or something...
-
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.
-
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!
Very true, Tesla is 130,000 employees working hard to move the world towards a cleaner all electric future and prevent a climate catastrophe. There has been a shift in Elon’s view of the world and politics in recent years for sure. I strongly oppose some of his viewpoints. Elon is narcissistic, childish, and stubborn. However, to Elon’s credit he is not immovable, he is constantly assessing and reevaluating. I’ve always been impressed by his willingness to make major course corrections (move away from automation early in M3 ramp). Here’s to hoping that he soon realizes that his right to free speech doesn’t trump his fiduciary responsibility to share holders.
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 are looking into the politics of every CEO for every product they buy, its seems odd to single out Tesla.
Lastly, I’d say consumers that buy another EV besides Tesla are spiting themselves a bit if they are paying a comparable price. Tesla is the best EV value proposition. No other EV offers the level of safety, better autonomous features, or the ability to quickly and freely move about the country via the supercharger network. This is why I’m glad Elon/Tesla are gong to start advertising. The more people know about Tesla and EVs in general the clearer Tesla’s advantages become to the average consumer.
-
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.
Elon likes to be contrarian and subscribes to conspiracy theories too readily, but he is not a political ideologue. He voted for Biden, so he’s not MAGA. If I had to give him a brand, I’d say he’s a tin-foil hat libertarian. I agree he should be avoiding unnecessary controversy.
I’d like folks to also consider that Tesla/SpaceX is disrupting multiple billion/trillion dollar industries (oil and gas, car manufacturing, car dealership network, car insurance, electric utilities, aerospace, ISP w/ Starlink, commercial trucking, etc.). The incumbents are not going to go quietly. The incumbents spend huge on paid advertising and have allies in the media. Most the negative articles on Elon/Tesla are either influenced by those advertising dollars or the author was paid directly to produce negative articles. The amount of misinformation and distortion is stunning. Because Tesla does not advertise there is no disincentive or leverage Tesla can use with the media outlets to affect the tone of the coverage.
I’m not saying Elon doesn’t provide plenty of material needlessly, but it’s important to recognize there is a coordinated campaign to slow Tesla down. Billions are at stake based on how quickly and how fully this disruption plays out. The incumbents will do everything they can to prolong the profits, planet be daamned. First they tried maligning Tesla products and the company, when that failed (and with Elon’s help) they shifted to maligning Elon to damage the brand.
-
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!!!
-
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.
Fair assessment, and I can’t disagree. Elon sleeps 6 hours a night and works 360 days a year. He is relentless and to a large extent walled off from the realities of a normal daily life. Not hard to imagine some mental illness creeping in under those conditions. What’s made him brilliant may also be his undoing.
Also worth noting, that’s he has Aspergers and is bi-polar I believe. The awkwardness and seeming inability to empathize and take social cues stems in part from this.
I guess I think Elon can be both. He can be a controversial public figure that takes odd and troubling positions AND a laser-focused visionary changing the world for the better. With Elon you take the good with the bad, and the good far outweighs the bad from any objective measure.
-
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.
-
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!!!
See my previous post. I only disagree in that Elon has not abandoned the mission. He is still visionary and the Tesla mission is only accelerating. Tesla would be better off if Elon left Twitter, sure. Tesla would be better without Elon as the public face as CEO. However, I do not think Tesla would be better without Elon contributing to and driving the mission. We take for granted what he has accomplished (with a lot of help) these past 15 years. Elon sacrificed time with family, vacations and having a personal life to the mission (probably a couple marriages along the way).
Again, when you weigh what he’s sacrificed and what he’s accomplished against some unsavory social media rantings that are just words in the end, Elon has been huge net force for positive change in the world and continues to be in spite of his antics. He’s human, like any of us. Imperfect. Nuanced. There are far worse humans running Fortune 500 companies, we just don’t know their names.
-
One of his rants was not "just a few words in the end". It is eternally unacceptable unless he apologizes and changes his tune.
-
One of his rants was not "just a few words in the end". It is eternally unacceptable unless he apologizes and changes his tune.
When I say a “a few words in the end”, I’m not down-playing the hurt and emotional toll words can have. What I mean is that his words, even if abhorrent, have little actual impact in the world beyond the stir they cause. 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. He likes to throw verbal grenades. His words may exacerbate and inflame our already divided politics, but in the end there is little to nothing that tangibly changes in the world based on his opinions and utterances. Compare that to the very real impact Tesla and SpaceX are having on the world towards the positive. Elon is a net force for positive change in the word by a large margin.
I’m not suggesting you not to take exception or offense, that’s you’re right, as it is to boycott Tesla. I’m deeply troubled by Elon’s opinions on a number of topics. But I think you are being overly simplistic. Humans are not either good or evil. I think a better approach is to weigh all the good Elon has manifested in the world against his hurtful and distasteful words. It’s the same thing we do with our personal relationships. We weigh the good and bad qualities and action of our friends and families when choosing when and how to associate.
-
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'll refrain. But thanks for your viewpoints, I agree with a lot of what you say.
-
This thread asks "Is Tesla a good investment". The most relevant to that, in my view, are things like demand for Tesla's products and future revenue streams. David Faber interviewed Elon Musk, touching on both of those points.
China's market for EVs is far more compeititve than the U.S., yet that competition doesn't impact Tesla's business. In China, Tesla is constrained by production, not demand. Just to add my own take, Wikipedia shows 4x more EVs in China, whch roughly equals their 4x higher population. But still, 4x demand met by 4x production (not just Tesla).
Faber questioned the optimism of autonomous driving later this year, pointing to past years with the same claim. I side with Faber - very rare intervention over a weekend isn't rare enough. It's also telling that Mr Musk didn't mention regulation, which I've seen be a blind spot of his in the past. To enable this later this year requires regulations be passed in weeks, when I think years is a more likely scenario. So a lot of obstacles to the technology, and then to regulatory approval.
But if it succeeds, this enables a new revenue stream for Tesla: self-driving cars could be robo-Ubers. Tesla's contracts have covered this for many years, apparently.
-
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.
-
... 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.
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.
-
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?
-
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 says the rest know that Tesla's are the safest cars on the road, the most efficient EV's with a great charging network and that Tesla has the most advanced real world AI in the world. Tesla financials are on of the strongest in the market and they are prepared for any recession. If you can handle the volatility and you are young there is a high possibility that will payout handsomely eventually.
-
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 says
I 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.
this is so true! I mentioned about paper products up thread. No one said boo. If any of you are buying brawy paper towels, quilted northern toilet paper, and dozens of other koch brothers' paper products, then you really aren't doing your homework or thinking for yourself about the relative effects of what you are buying.
The huge negative on buying a tesla is making musk richer. Due to personal animosity. Well, ok? Is that the extent of your politically motivated shopping? Meanwhile, the koch bros industries have been manipulating politics in a deliberately stealthy manner for decades.
road tripping seems to a major issue in moving to EVs. In terms of other electric vehicles, the likelihood is that those who purchase other EVs are going to be using tesla chargers when road tripping or other nonhome charging
-
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.
I'd like to know!!!
-
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 says
I 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.
sidebar: both on my personal boycott list! along with Angelsoft, Brawny, Dixie, Mardi Gras, Quilted Northern, Soft n Gentle, Sparkle, Vanity Fair
-
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?
Bolded is as far as I could get. You lose all credibility (not that you have any on the subject of Tesla) with that statement. Tesla was little more than an idea when Musk bought in. They had one concept car that was going no where fast. Musk came up with Road Map 1 (start with high end and work down market). This is the plan that took Tesla from life support to mass production. He was heavily involved in the engineering of the vehicles and engineering of the production plant itself. He created a company with a mission and culture that attracted the best talent in the world. That didn’t happen by chance. That you could somehow dismiss all that as Elon essentially being nothing more than the money guy?
I’m not sure what axe you have to grind when it comes to Tesla, but you clearly are not objective. Perhaps being off on the company's prospects and missing the investment opportunity jaded you? Don’t know, just a guess, don’t care what motivates to continually come here and spout nonsense, but do wish you’d stop.
-
I'm very curious to see how 2nd quarter ends up for Tesla and the auto industry as a whole. Tesla took some criticism for declining margins after their price cuts, and whether or not the price cuts had a big enough effect on sales. They fell short of the 50% YoY growth but hit estimates.
One point of comparison is one of the top selling EV's other than Tesla, the Ford Mustang Mach-E. Somewhere in the neighborhood of a 65% sales decrease in April 2023. vs prior year. This is at a price point where Ford is losing a fortune i.e. 10's of thousands per car. So perhaps Tesla's ~37% year over year sales increase is not a bad result in comparison? As a direct comparison, Mustang Mach-E was 20% sales decrease Q1.
Current total US inventory of Tesla is about 2400 cars, fully half of which are Model X. So there are a grand total of 1200 M3, MY, and MS combined.
Ford Mustang Mach-E....I don't have an accurate inventory source, but Autotrader shows over 5500 new Mach-E's.......
-
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.
-
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.
The hate on Tesla by the media is nothing new. CNBC has been trashing in him or Tesla since their IPO. Detroit and the media always wanted him to fail. Check out Jim Cramer's and Phil's interview from Tesla's IPO to see the hate at the time he was only know from his PayPal success. Electric cars are polarizing and they bring lots of hate.
-
This from my news feed today. Just one example of Tesla and Elon's commitment to making the world better and minimizing the impact of Tesla’s operation. An illustration of how its overly simplistic to say Elon bad. Elon will over engineer the vehicles to make them as safe as possible instead of maximizing profits. He’s neither a saint, nor the devil. I can only hope to have a fraction of the positive impact on the world that he has personally brought about.
https://www.tesla-mag.com/tesla-to-conduct-third-party-audit-of-its-battery-material-suppliers/
-
Musk's involvement in Tesla was primarily
Gosh, 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.
Anyway, this isn't trying to defend Musk as a person - it's pretty damn clear now that he's an out-of-touch-conspiracy-addicted-asshole.
That doesn't preclude him having actual significant technical accomplishments.
-
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.
I said I wanted to remain drama free with respect to not wanting to quote the unacceptable thing he said.
The topic is "Is Tesla a Good Investment" and I answered NO because he is alienating half the country. Everything I said was on topic.. and valid. He is stupid because it will affect share owners of TSLA.
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. Elon Musk made the following tweet on twitter right after it was announced he was buying Twitter.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519735033950470144
-
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.
P.S. Keep in mind I used to LOVE this guy, until he changed all of a sudden last year; i.e. until he started calling me and my friends & family names.
-
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.
I understand you've already stated you don't want to discuss whatever Musk said specifically in the last couple of days that was particularly alienating or offensive to you. However, I tried to google and figure out what it would be and nothing obviously stood out. The top stories that come up about him right now are twitter fighting about paying rent, Musk wanting a bathroom in his office, and laid off workers suing twitter. None sound as dramatic as what you describe.
I'm not questioning that Musk said something transgressive or offensive. But I do want to ask you if you'd be willing to reconsider your fractions.
You've said Musk has driven away half the country from Tesla. From a mixture of context and knowing the kinds of offensive things Musk says without knowing the specific thing you're talking about, I'm guessing you mean the liberal/Democratic half of the country? If so, a better estimate of the proportion of the country that are going to see that as applying to themselves is probably on the order of 1/3. About 1/3 of eligible voters came out and voted for Joe Biden in what was seen as an existential election. 24-30% of people identify as democrats when reached by pollsters.
Of the 1/3 of people who might feel targeted, an unknown but non-trivial fraction aren't paying attention or aren't hearing about the stuff Musk is saying. It's hard to believe if you're embedded in the social media or cable news worlds and getting fed constant outrages, but a lot of people simply don't follow or know about this stuff. Of the people who might feel targeted and do hear about it, a subset are going to respond to Musk saying stupid or offensive things by saying "okay he's an idiot" but change their purchasing decisions.
Put all that together and my guess is Musk has actually driven away 10-20% of the country from Tesla. Which is still millions and millions of people. Still not good for Tesla. And still something no company wants its CEO to do. But it isn't half the country.
-
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.
Agree with you first paragraph. Great analogy. My favorite uncle from my childhood fell down the Fox News, conservative talk radio rabbit hole. It stinks. He say outlandish things, borderline racist comments, often for shock value, at family gatherings. I’ve lost a little admiration for my uncle, but he’s still a good person, who has done a tremendous amount of good in the world.
While Elon may be suffering from mental illness, you don’t have to be mentally ill to fall down the right-wing (or less common left-wing) rabbit hole and let your ego get the better of you.
I think Tesla's need to advertise has very little to do with Elon’s behavior. Bigger factor is that all the true believers, who do their own EV research, previous LEAF owners, etc. have already bought Teslas and likely convinced some friends and family to do the same. For Tesla to steadily increase demand to meet ever growing production, Tesla needs to embark on a public education campaign. The average American car buyer doesn’t know Tesla makes the safest cars on the road, that you can recharge in 15 minutes, or that you can buy a Tesla for under $40,000 or less than the average car sale price in America today. Vast majority of car buyers aren’t going to care about Elon’s tweets once they understand the value proposition of owning a Tesla EV.
I also don’t agree that most politicians are unwilling to work with him. Texas governor Ken Paxton was at Tesla’s ground breaking ceremony for their Corpus Christi lithium refinery. I believe that Elon’s turn to the right, was brought about by Biden’s refusal to even say the word Tesla for the first year or two of his administration and because Biden heaped false praise on GM and its CEO Mary Barra for bringing about the EV revolution. Biden did all this to appease the auto unions (Tesla isn’t a union shop).
Elon has since met with Biden and routinely meets with heads of state, including French President Marcon (sp) just last week. Tesla is too big for politicians to ignore or to actively seek to hurt any longer. Tesla employees 130,000 world wide and generates tremendous tax revenue. Pols can set-up speed bumps (tax EVs at the state level and enact protectionist measures for ICE dealerships), but Tesla is now in the too big to fail camp.
Bottom line, I think the impacts of Elon’s twitter antics are over-stated. The effect on Tesla sales is not zero and may be significant (based on anecdotal evidence) here in the US, but has little to no effect on sales in the rest of the world. Confronted with the value proposition, most of the never Tesla crowd will act in their own best interest (financial and safety).
-
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.
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.
Don't lie about what I said. Quote where I said what you claimed.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I understood your factually incorrect statement just fine - but you were wrong.
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.
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.)
-
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.
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.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic here but I do want to make an observation
This is about the 4th or 5th thread I've seen where you've become anxious/upset/otherwise bothered by a string of dialogue, yet you always seem to insist on continuing to engage with it (even after saying numerous times about how much you don't want to continue engaging with it)
Perhaps if a topic or discussion is having such a profound negative impact on your emotional wellbeing, you should just stop paying attention to it. You do not have to respond to everything that is said to you on the internet. You do not always have to get one more word in. You can in fact say "I have said all I wish to say on this topic and will no longer be responding to it" and then no matter what anyone else says in response, you can simply... not respond. It isn't in bad taste to do so and doesn't mean you've "lost" - as if anyone really wins or loses in the vast majority of internet disagreements. If you find yourself in a room breathing toxic air, and the door to leave is unlocked, it is better to leave the room than to languish on the floor lamenting about how much your lungs hurt from breathing the toxic air.
Similarly, in regards to your comments about Elon's acquisition of Twitter and subsequent remarks there, you do not actually have to use that platform. Or hell, even if you absolutely insist on spending time and energy on twitter for some reason, you can just... block Elon's account, and then you won't have to see any of his awful, dystopian overlord tweets. Indeed, almost everything you see and engage with online is 100% at your discretion. Very little of it, if any, is actually required. You don't have to pay attention to anything that Elon or anyone else says or does online. It's really not important. At all.
You may of course approach the Pandora's Box that is the internet superhighway however you desire, but it would be my personal recommendation that if something or someone online upsets you, you should just stop paying attention to it. You will find the internet to be a much less stressful place that way.
-
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.
-
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. Your "assertiveness" does not bother me at all, and if it did I would simply not engage in discussions with you.
If you'd like I can give you a list of every rich and powerful loud 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 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:
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.
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?
-
Why are you repeating yourself over and over? I've clearly explained everything. I didn't lie about anything, I explained I misunderstood you. Go back a couple posts and read.
This is what I wrote. I explained I misunderstood you. It's back like 4 posts:
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 politics
You 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.
...
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.
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.
-
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.
-
Well, that was fun…back to Tesla. I see we can buy a $35k Model 3 again, so that’s very cool.
https://electrek.co/2023/05/19/tesla-discounts-inventory-cars/
My local Tesla shop has inventory. Test drove one and liked it a lot. The RWD entry level model has more performance than I need.
Nice car. Still expensive compared to our Bolt ($24k in 2021, $21k now with tax incentives). Not any more useful than the Bolt to us.
Be a lot more attractive as a hatchback.
Maybe someone knows: can you get a road bike in the trunk of a Model 3 fairly easily? With the Bolt I get my 50cm road bike in without taking a wheel out.
Also drove a Y LR. Definitely more than we need. A rear-wheel drive Y with 250 mile range would be ideal. Maybe that's what this is:
https://electrek.co/2023/05/16/tesla-teases-next-car-new-image/
Tesla has teased its next electric car with a new image of the silhouette, and Elon Musk says it is already being built.
$40k with $7500 tax credit would be very attractive.
Then I'd just have to get past the Elon ick factor, which is very, very strong right now. I really do not want people to think I support the opinions of that man.
On topic, Elon has said the Telsa investment thesis hangs on self-driving. Makes sense to me.
-
interesting development!
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.
Wall street seemed to very much like this news.....
-
Having North America consolidate to using the Tesla/NACS charging connector is a big win for consumers. The CCS networks are a haphazard, unreliable mess.
-
Tesla Model Y was the number one selling vehicle in the world Q1 2023.
-
https://jalopnik.com/whistleblower-drops-100-gigabytes-of-tesla-secrets-to-g-1850476542
The safety concerns listed here seem kind of expected to me, but the cultural approach to the problem seems concerning to me.
https://jalopnik.com/emails-show-elon-musk-was-directly-involved-in-staged-s-1850011842
-
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!
-
When/where Tesla opened up it’s charging network to other EV owners (individuals) Tesla charged subscriptions fees and/or charged premiums for the electricity.
Assuming this applies to Ford’s EV customers and you start to get a sense of how Tesla will be monetizing the supercharger network going further. Ford just gained a competitive advantage over its ICE legacy competitors. Ford’s partnership will only accelerate Tesla’s investment in the supercharger network. Buy in or build your own fast charging network. Not much of a choice.
-
3 or 4 years ago my older 2 kids thought it was really fun to look for Teslas and have a daily/weekly/etc competition to see who spotted the most (they were 6 and 4 at the time).
Now you could not possibly do that and keep count, I see half a dozen one the 1 commute to school on a typical morning.
Rivians are getting to common to be fun too...
-Walt
-
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!
They are still a pretty rare sight in my neighborhood, but that's to be expected given how rural of an area I live in. There is only one Tesla charging station within 20 miles of my house.
I would guess in my town there are 20-30 diesel pickup trucks for every 1 EV of any kind
-
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.
Sorry, but this is BS. As is often noted in these types of discussions, sticking to the "status quo" is by default promoting the conservative position, since that is in favor of existing power structures. There's no viable way of avoiding politics. When conservative/reactionaries become psychotic when a company even acknowledge the existence of a group, they can't "avoid politics". Either AB will (continue) to not mention that group, which implicitly promote the right's genocidal position towards these marginalized groups. Or AB will include LGBTQ people in their ads (or otherwise acknowledge their existence) which the right calls "become involved in politics". Just as easily one could say AB can't have ads with black people, since that will offend the white nationalist/klan types. If all beer ads only feature white, hetro/cis men are they "avoiding politics"? How do you think anyone not in that group feels about it then? (Will a black woman who drinks bud say: "I'm so glad AB are staying out of politics by only having white men in their ads"??)
The old joke; there are two types of people: white (straight), and "political". What is a non-political beer ad these days? The reactionaries get hysterically mad about gay people on TV, black Disney characters, (too many) white men being the bad guy, etc etc. Hell, some go real old school and complain about interracial relationships! All they have is grievance-obsessed (white) identity politics, there is no way to not engage with this, either through silence or inclusion. Both actions supporting one of the sides. Especially not while as you say "trying to appeal to the widest possible market".
-
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.
George Soros!
-
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.
been trying to follow the AI news and see what companies will be key players and which among those are investable. Tesla is rarely if ever mentioned.
What was your take on the Tesla side of AI? In terms of capturing AI upside?
-
I think the market will not price in Tesla as an AI play until Full Self Driving is viable, which, honestly, it is not right now.
The issue is that FSD is a long tail problem. It is trivially easy to get ~80% of situations. Decently hard to get 99.9% of solutions, but those .1% are all really hard edge cases. I suggest paying attention to youtube channels like dirty tesla to get a sense of where the tech is. It is certainly improving, but the jury is out on if it will be true true self driving.
I think if there is hope for FSD being something monetizable, it will first be geofenced. There already are AI cars being used in Vegas and SF. So it does seem possible for Tesla to allow just those locations to be used for robotaxis.
One thing I think people aren't talking about is tesla's investment into Dojo. I do question, if that is a good idea, since nVidia is making some intense strides into development hardware. This decoupling from nVidia could be why Tesla is not currently tracking, as they are redoing the research and product dev nVidia is currently doing.
I've been following Gary Black, and he puts TSLA at a 320 price target in 6-12 months. I Think that is reasonable. That is dependant on the effect of advertisement, the cybertruck launch, Twitter positive cash flow, and the roll out of the compact model. If we can get a compact model, with decamillion deliveries, I would personally value that at like 500$/share. I think that happens within 4 years.
If we get true FSD, that is monetizable, then you are looking at 4 digit share price numbers. And more if it gets implemented into optimus. But, of course, that is very speculative.
-
Interesting article about current and upcoming Tesla production lines:
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.
-
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.
-
Isn't it interesting
I 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.
Curious.
-
Interesting article about current and upcoming Tesla production lines:
https://www.assemblymag.com/articles/97788-tesla-rethinks-the-assembly-line
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.
-
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.
-
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
I think it depends on how it goes. It looks like ford is finding ways to move forward with EVs and with tesla, and there is good will between the companies. Seems they are carving out a good position for themselves.
With the others - I think how the government response to a huge crisis vs a slow dwindle of business might be a difference. UAW is also a huge force to reckon with in the US, and tesla refusing unions might be an issue with US politics. But still all very hazy I think.
-
Big legacy auto companies are politically untouchable - especially in Asia. There is zero chance that the US/EU/China/India allows Tesla to become a monopoly or near monopoly, so there is a hard ceiling on market share (we're not there yet, of course).
Tesla can license tech, collaborate, and pursue other stuff that is only tangentially about cars (ie solar). But they cannot and will not drive legacy manufacturers out of business.
Note that I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's the political reality.
-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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
In EV trucks, my uninformed opinion is that Ford will beat Tesla. Suppose that's true, and Tesla is the #1 EV car maker and Ford the #1 EV truck maker. Both use Tesla's charging network, which will pressure other EV makers to join Tesla's network. Tesla could wind up with a near monopoly of gas stations - I mean electric chargers. That gives them the power to set prices, which is valuable (for consumers... not so much).
I suppose a key question is when will Tesla no longer be bottlenecked on production.
-
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.
-W
-
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
-
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.
That explains a lot. Thanks.
-
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.
Once we get to 50%+ EV market, the profitability is there for a whole host of as yet unknown players to take a piece.
-
I'm saying it because people keep repeatedly claiming the Tesla can drive their competitors out of business and this will drive huge profits. I'm simply pointing out that it's not something that will happen.
Imagine the outcry if you could only buy a Ford, or only fuel up at Standard Oil stations...
-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.
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 of gas 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.
-
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 of gas 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.
I guess somone did say it, lol!
-
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.
-W
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.
https://www.dailydot.com/debug/broadband-telecom-monopolies-covid-subsidies/
Tesla could wind up with a near monopoly of gas stations - I mean electric chargers. That gives them the power to set prices, which is valuable (for consumers... not so much).
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.
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.
-
More good Tesla news:
US: All Tesla Model 3 Versions Qualify For $7,500 Federal Tax Credit Now
The entry-level version starts effectively at under $35,000
https://insideevs.com/news/670403/all-tesla-model3-7500-federal-tax-credit/
Not updated on fueleconomy.gov yet:
https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax2023.shtml
-
Tesla to open charging network to GM next year; GM, Tesla shares rally
5:17 pm ET June 8, 2023 (MarketWatch)
Print
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.
GM also to gain access to the supercharger network.
Wallstreet like this new today.....tesla up 4.58% at close, up an additional 2.97% in post market trading.
-
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.
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.
up to 5.68% in postmarket trading.
total of over 10.5% increase today. i like seeing it, lol, but the postmarket trading sometimes is ephemeral to invisible during the next regular market hours. Looking forward to tomorrow's coffee, :)
-
looks like yesterday's postmarket numbers held.....so far!
-
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.
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:
Step 1: Grab the charging cable
Step 2: Plug it into your car.
That's all. Done.
This will be an issue for EV's that aren't setup to communicate directly with the charger such as Tesla and 2025 Ford and GM EV's
-
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:
IIRC the requirement is that at least ONE charger per location takes local payment.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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!
Tsla has really been on an upswing the past month! Rvian joining in the fun.
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.
I was like - TSLA up again as the market shows a loss? And saw the Rivian headlines. I was thinking about what a huge buying opportunity this big TSLA price dip was. Wished I'd picked up more, but it is scary to see that volatility! I did pick up some!
-
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.
only you can answer if the potential reward is worth the personal risk you take in doing so.
This thread is full of extreme tesla for and foe.....so you won't be short of opinoins on the potential!
-
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!
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. ???
-
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. ???
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. ???
Sorry I wasn't clear. They haven't been back to defend their apparent thesis that Tesla sucks as an investment.
I think it's time to resort to name calling. If you invest in Tesla... Cathie Wood agrees with you.
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%?
-
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. ???
Sorry I wasn't clear. They haven't been back to defend their apparent thesis that Tesla sucks as an investment.
I think it's time to resort to name calling. If you invest in Tesla... Cathie Wood agrees with you.
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.
-
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. ???
Sorry I wasn't clear. They haven't been back to defend their apparent thesis that Tesla sucks as an investment.
I think it's time to resort to name calling. If you invest in Tesla... Cathie Wood agrees with you.
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.
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%
-
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. ???
Sorry I wasn't clear. They haven't been back to defend their apparent thesis that Tesla sucks as an investment.
I think it's time to resort to name calling. If you invest in Tesla... Cathie Wood agrees with you.
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.
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.
-
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. ???
Sorry I wasn't clear. They haven't been back to defend their apparent thesis that Tesla sucks as an investment.
I think it's time to resort to name calling. If you invest in Tesla... Cathie Wood agrees with you.
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.
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.
The question is tied to the date the question was put forth. For anyone who bought TSLA and has held it for any significant period of time, Tesla IS a good investment. It only WAS (past tense) a good investment if you sold.
Saying that the future price and performance of TSLA and Tesla are not guaranteed is only stating the obvious. I would contend, for anyone who bought in March 2018, when this thread started, it’s hard to imagine a scenario given Tesla’s continued growth, where their investment can no longer be considered a success even if TSLA were to plateau at this price.
For ChpBstrd, his/her history in this thread is to ignore (or disparage as blind luck) the past performance over the extended time period they have been arguing against the investment and always pointing to the impending “doom”, based on whatever shifting rationale the media is pumping out that week. They never acknowledge being wrong about their contentions, but move on to their next “concern”. Tesla could go to zero tomorrow and he/she still would have been dead wrong for the past 5 years plus while missing out on 1,000% gain.
-
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. ???
Sorry I wasn't clear. They haven't been back to defend their apparent thesis that Tesla sucks as an investment.
I think it's time to resort to name calling. If you invest in Tesla... Cathie Wood agrees with you.
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 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.
-
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. ???
Sorry I wasn't clear. They haven't been back to defend their apparent thesis that Tesla sucks as an investment.
I think it's time to resort to name calling. If you invest in Tesla... Cathie Wood agrees with you.
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.
is that just your stance on any individual stock? because it really dosent seem to be based on anything real.
ron baron is saying 500/share in 2025 (nearly doubling from today's values) and 1500 by 2030 (so sextupling?)
https://www.benzinga.com/trading-ideas/long-ideas/23/02/30771654/elon-musk-expects-tesla-to-be-worth-more-than-saudi-aramco-apple-combined-by-2030-why-1
so - potentially some interesting years ahead for those of us invested.
You've been wrong on tesla for 5? 6? years now? I guess no reason to stop now.....
-
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.
-
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.
lol, you convinced me :)
Bought two more shares today.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
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.
Was that $750/share stock price target from before the 1:3 stock split that occurred last August?
Thanks for the correction - yes, DZ Bank's price target was from July 29 2022.
https://www.benzinga.com/news/21/07/22217074/dz-bank-upgrades-tesla-to-buy-announces-750-price-target
That means a price target of $250/sh post 3:1 split, which I missed. The last buy rating in Feb 2023 had a potential upside of +20%, which has already happened.
"DZ BANK AG analyst Matthias Volkert maintained a Buy rating on Tesla (TSLA – Research Report) today. The company’s shares closed last Friday at $208.31.
According to TipRanks, Volkert is ranked #7288 out of 8297 analysts."
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/dz-bank-ag-sticks-to-their-buy-rating-for-tesla-tsla-1032111313
p.s. - I've removed that post ($750 target) since it relied on a faulty assumption.
-
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!
Interesting!
as mentioned before - tesla sightings on the road becoming increasingly common here. It is interesting to watch the landscape changing on this. Way too long in coming, for the environment....
Hoping everyone (Tesla, Ford, GM, etc.) gets those affordable EVs out and in force.
-
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.
-
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/)
-
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/)
Ah. Thanks for clearing that up for me!
-
Volvo added to list of those who will have access to tesla charging networks......
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
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 :)
-
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.
...
Overall, I think TSLA stock is worth buying despite inflation risk.
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.
-
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
-
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
Very! I didn't read the thread from the beginning - did you buy? how much? how much worth now? :)
-
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.
Thanks for info! My thoughts were more internal than that. While good news would be good and maybe spike the price, at some level I was kind of wondering if I'd prefer less than stellar news for a price dip to pick up my next 2 shares......
-
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
tesla posted on twitter there were 466k deliveries for Q2 vs the 445k the above quote said wall street was looking for.....nearly 5% above that expectation. Interesting
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.
-
tesla up 6% at the moment....so looks like the 5% plus a little?
-
lol! was wondering if it would hold till market close.....market already closed!
-
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? Way too many variables to make predictions that aren’t speculation. Yes, there was some discounting at the beginning of the quarter that will reduce ASP over Q1. There are several factors that could make up for those price cuts.
COGS going down with reduced raw material prices and cost of new factories being spread out over more units.
Production has become more localized with new factories ramping in NA and Europe. Reducing transport and tariff costs.
Currency exchange rates can greatly effect margins.
Tesla energy continues to scale rapidly with healthy margins.
Q2 compared to Q1 saw almost twice as many high-margin X and S vehicles delivered.
Tesla continues to unwind the delivery wave, doing away with costly (logistically) late quarter pushes. Also means more cars shown as inventory at waters end.
Tesla continues to execute on plans to reduce production costs through greater manufacturing efficiencies for both vehicles and batteries.
How much deferred revenue did Tesla recognize this quarter from FSD and enabling of new functionality or new users.
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. What I do know is the long term trajectory and growth of the company, so I’ll either celebrate an earnings beat or buy the 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.
Can I borrow your crystal ball?
No, it's attuned to me.
-
RWD LFP Tesla Model Y Could Slash Price By $4,850, Driving US Sales To The Next Level
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/24/rwd-lfp-tesla-model-y-could-slash-price-by-4850-driving-us-sales-to-the-next-level/
Looks good. This is what I've been wanting them to do.
I loved the Model 3 RWD I rented, but we need more room. 260 miles range is fine. Don't need AWD (most people don't).
-
I loved the Model 3 RWD I rented, but we need more room.
Model 3 and Model Y are very close in size. The Y does get about 5 inches more leg room in the second row (with a wheelbase that's just half an inch longer), and about 13 cu ft more cargo capacity, but they'll probably feel very similar. Just make sure that the Y gives you enough "more room"
https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-56562137-FC31-4110-A13C-9A9FC6657BF0.html
https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/modely/en_us/GUID-E47C4A6D-528E-419C-8C57-FD3864644C34.html
-
It's the hatchback I want. If the 3 were a hatch I'd probably buy it. As is, the trunk opening is too small.
-
13 cubic feet is a lot!
Our Nissan Leaf hack for more space has been a big rocket box. It hurts range/efficiency on the highway by maybe 10% which is significant, but it makes the care usable for 5 people for ski/bike outings or overnight trips where we need to bring significant amounts of clothing/gear. It takes maybe 3-4 minutes to install or remove so it just lives in the corner of the garage when we don't need it.
-W
-
earnings tonight!
any predictions?
I could see it going either way, honestly. higher volume and lower earnings....or they had that margin figured out better than we did and earnings will be better than we are thinking....
Also very interested in seeing what the earnings are on tesla energy....last time was a huge jump...will it continue?
-
Didn't see this news about Nissan posted before...
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/
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.
-
Didn't see this news about Nissan posted before...
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/
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.
Maybe in a year or so......took a bit of dive after ok earnings.....
-
Biggest takeaways from Tesla earnings call for me:
1) Tesla Energy margins jumped from 10% to 18%, and are now on par with auto margins. Tesla Energy revenue was flat, but those energy storage products are lumpy as far as their timing and completion. I expect Tesla Energy will continue to grow rapidly and if 18% margins are here to stay that is huge. Suspect the IRA may be playing a role here along with scaling.
2) New version of 4680 cells are 10% more efficient with the same weight. Every vehicle with 4680s can now get the same range with 10% were cells or gained 10% range on the same number of cells. This is one of those things that Wall Street glosses over, but it’s this constant improvements in efficiencies and process that drive Tesla’s success.
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.
4) Not related to earnings, but Ford lowered ASPs on the F-150 Lightning series despite losing money on every one they make currently. Timing suggests Ford knows it can’t compete with the Tesla CyberTruck on pricing and specs and want to clear inventory before the CTs starts mass production in the coming months.
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).
-
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.
Yeah, a decrease was expected by some people. I guess you came around?
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).
A stock doesn't drop nearly 10% the day after earnings because of production line re-tooling. It's about margins and the Cybertruck.
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.
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/us-stocks-nasdaq-sp-500-futures-fall-after-q2-reports-by-tesla-netflix
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/20/tesla-stock-falls-on-slim-margins-cybertruck-concerns.html
https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/19/tesla-hits-25b-in-q2-revenue-but-margins-decrease-amid-price-cuts/
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3989395-tesla-skids-10-after-earnings-disappoint-and-drags-down-other-ev-stocks
Etc., etc.
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.
-
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.
seriously!!
-
https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/07/26/teslas-record-breaking-earnings-report-what-every/
https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/07/25/1-chart-that-shows-where-tesla-is-headed/
motley fool kind having nice things to say about tesla? I think they were not fans originally.....seems a bit wishy washy still...
ETA: meant to say NOT fans!!
-
Motley Fool: "However, don't be surprised if Tesla raises prices once it sees more strength in the EV market. This action can likely be traced to what the Federal Reserve decides to do with interest rates, as it significantly affects the rate consumers can get on a car loan. A lower interest rate gives the consumer more buying power, and Tesla will likely adjust its pricing based on this fact.
As a result, I think this is a relatively short-term trend and will likely reverse itself in the next few years. While Tesla stock is expensive, I still think it is a must-own stock because it is well-positioned in one of the most significant technological shifts many generations have ever seen."
Do you think Tesla will raise prices significantly any time soon? Is Musk looking for huge margins on hardware? It doesn't seem so.
They do have a great advantage over the legacy manufacturers in their ability to adjust prices quickly with inventory levels. That'll continue.
-
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.
But the other link highlights that +50% revenue growth and +66% cost growth aren't a good combination. That comes from some combination of China's slowdown and competition in the EV market there. Will both of those pressures let up before the next quarterly earnings call?
-
Couple of interesting updates.
Significant price reductions on MS and MX.
-MS is now $74,990 with no up-charge for any paint color, which is normally as much as $4,000 extra.
-MX is now $79,990, includes tow hitch and no charge for any color.
This makes MX eligible for federal tax credit as well, AFAIK.
The M3 refresh is now out and being produced in China. Not available in NA anytime soon. The refresh is both minor and significant at the same time. The car does not look drastically different, but the front and rear have both been changed. The front especially looks nice IMO.
-Range increased, around 5-10% AFAIK.
-Interior updated quite a bit including a rear seat screen that gives HVAC and heated seat control as well as entertainment access.
-NVH improvements including all laminate glass for noise reduction. This is an important and welcome change.
-Suspension changes/improvements
-Stalks for turn signals and shifter removed. I don't think this is a welcome change for most, but it's a change.
-New wheels. Aero wheels look much better IMO.
-Upgraded stereo, although I can't imagine why. The old one was fantastic and far more capable than anyone would want/need. Went from 14 speakers and one subwoofer to 17 speakers and two subs.
So looks wise, the changes are subtle, but there are many changes that are not visible.
Apparently, this comes with a price increase although a big part of the purpose of the refresh was to reduce cost. My WAG(wild ass guess) is that price will be a bit higher initially in order to clear out any remaining inventory which is currently discounted. Suspect they will try to keep price higher to see if the refresh boosts demand enough to overcome the price increase. Will be good for margins if so.
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.
-
Weird that they're not just sticking with the legitimate complaint:
- Too bad replacing gas vehicles with EVs won't solve the underlying problems leading to catastrophic climate change, which requires a shift in our way of life and largely an end to the bad habit of individual personal transportation by 2000 lb metal box and flying in tubes of environmental doom for recreation.
-
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.
-
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 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.
There is kind of a lull now in growth because energy is ramping relentlessly (100%+/ year) from
a smaller base, and Cybertruck is the next big growth driver but will take a while to ramp.
Then they have new factories being built in China (energy/Megapack) and Mexico (new compact car).
Tons of growth will come from the above in next 4-5 years. I’m very bullish long term, not that concerned with the day to day swings which seem very random.
If you look at before- Tesla essentially flat for several years then sudden explosion in 2020.
Instead of pricing in growth appropriately they wait until the growth explodes and then the stock does the same.
-
I thought the drop was because elon was being an mega ass again.
In ways that millions will not buy teslas, assishness....
-
I thought the drop was because elon was being an mega ass again.
In ways that millions will not buy teslas, assishness....
Didn’t even notice him in the news, but whatever he might have said I doubt it moved the needle. Those that would not buy a Tesla because they don’t like him would have been in that camp for a while now.
The M3 refresh is very big news item. Lots of changes.
But it’s not available for a while in the US, which will be a drag on existing M3 sales. It’s available internationally being built at the China factory. Available in US most likely in 1Q as Fremont transitions.
They also decreased price significantly on the S and X which I think was part of the Wall Street reaction.
But, these models are only 4% of Tesla sales, and they were not really selling at the list price. Ie they would pile up in inventory and sell at a discount.
So in a very shallow/ shortsighted analysis this all looks like a drag on profits.
But the M3 refresh especially is very positive, even though there will be a hit for a quarter or two during the transition. From 2024 profit will benefit from it.
-
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.
Let's see, Tesla went public around 12 years ago. If analysts still don't understand the company then the leadership has done a poor job explaining the business. That, or perhaps analysts aren't buying what Musk is selling.
Big swings in value based on "nothingburger" events is another way of saying high volatility, which makes it a playground for shorts and options traders. Again, I think it's fair to ask what leadership is doing to establish credibility with investors when providing forward guidance.
-
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.
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.
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
-
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.
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.
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
Right but essentially the only major change was a refreshed model that had not been significantly upgraded in 6 years. It will reduce sales for rest of year due to availability schedule / hurting outdated model sales and then be very beneficial when fully available in 2024.
Anyone seriously following the company would know that Models S and X were not selling at the list price, so reduction is not necessarily going to impact margin. Ie they were selling less total volume and much of it through discounted inventory versus the list price from the sales configurator on the website. So the avg selling price reduction is much less than list price reduction, and it will like increase sales volume. And it’s their niche products 4% of sales. Net = nothingburger.
And yes I agree with previous poster (I’m too lazy to quote it separately) above this that mgmt doesn’t explain and do PR / IR well. That’s a flaw of theirs.
But still given the size and impact of the company journalists and analysts (especially) could attempt to understand the company.
Doesn’t matter in the long term- eventually the fair value will be reflected. I am happy with the progress and medium to long term picture.
3 years from now will be really good and 5 years fantastic. Tesla has shown the ability to grow rapidly and execute and several huge incremental profit engines in the pipeline.
-
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. Energy division is on a massive growth curve. For software, it's not important that Tesla didn't solve FSD in 2018 or 2023. V12 is end to end neural networks and Tesla's data collection is unparalleled while compute is growing exponentially. An FSD dedicated 10,000 H100 compute cluster went online last week. It didn't matter that it took SpaceX 4 years instead of 1 year to land rockets. Even if it takes 3 more years to solve FSD, it's an insane driver of value and it's going to get done. 11.4.7 drove me through rural mountains over the weekend. It was awesome.
More products and services are in the pipe. Agree with Viking Thor on taking the 3-5 year perspective. Short-termers are loud and negativity sells better.
-
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
-
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
I know. That's the alpha.
-
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?
-
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?
Not a concern for me in the least, and no different than has been the case ever since the Covid related new car bubble popped a year or more ago.
Ever since then they periodically have discounted cars in inventory in certain locations, provided short term incentives, or reduced the base configurator price (which is more important). Every car company does this frequently but in the dealership it’s a hidden process where the car could be going well above MSRP or way below with incentives. Also Tesla is steadily reducing their cost of manufacturing the cars.
My things I look at as a long term investor are things like getting the various new products launched and scaled (cyber truck, compact car, semi), scaling the energy business, and progress on FSD.
I am more concerned with setbacks in those areas if they occur but they have enough revenue streams ongoing or building that a small setback or delay in one is not that concerning if it doesn’t impact the long term business.
-
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.
1980s - trading algorithms cause 1987 stock market meltdown, video game opponents
1990s - can beat any human at chess, better weather predictions
2000s - can plot optimal route on map
2010s - can translate voice dictation into text / instructions. Social media algos can addict users.
2015ish - can translate languages, badly.
20teens - can drive, badly, under extremely controlled conditions
2020s - can write book reports based on internet sources, weather prediction improves marginally
2023 - can drive well under extremely controlled conditions (e.g. mapped neighborhoods in perfect weather)
2030s - ?
Storage, transfer speeds, size, power consumption, speed, cost, graphics, etc. are all attributes of computing that improved at exponential rates per decade. AI seems to be making incremental yet significant functional improvement on the scale of each decade. Instead of following Moore's law, AI seems to be evolving at a similar many-decades speed as the internal combustion engine, LED, airplane, or solar panel.
That's not to say the pace of improvement won't speed up (e.g. AI is the only tech that could possibly optimize itself) and it's not to say the developmental plateau is anywhere near. It is simply to note that advances in AI are not proceeding according to the pace of advances in other aspects of computing. I.e. when computers get 10x faster, AI seems to become 2x as functional.
So maybe Tesla has the FSD product by 2030, and maybe it works well enough in most places under most conditions to become as common as cruise control was in the late 1980s.
-
I disagree with that characterization of AI as not accelerating over time.
AI as we currently know it as been part of public perception for less than 10 years. In 2014, asking a computer to figure out if a bird was in a photo was essentially impossible (contemporary xkcd comic (https://xkcd.com/1425/)). However there was already a breakthrough brewing in academic circles. It wasn't actually a new algorithm, but the understanding that certain sorts of algorithms produced better and better performance when trained on really big piles of data. <-- seems obvious in retrospect, huh?
2015, computers started to exceed the performance of human beings at certain, narrowly defined, tasks related to recognizing handwritten letters.
2017, AlphaGo (trained on huge numbers historical Go games) beat the worlds top ranked Go player. And in 2018, AlphaGoZero, trained on nothing more than the rules of Go, beat AlphaGo consistently.
2018, Computers out perform dermatologists at accurately identifying skin cancer.
2020, AI can accurately predict protein folding with trackable amounts of computer power required, a big rate limiting step in biology (we'd been dependent on someone being able to crystalize the protein so it could be imaged which is labor intensive, slow, only works for certain proteins).
2021, text-to-image generative AI first becomes available.
2022, Within a year the photos produced by AI from text prompts are so realistic they are winning photography contests (not just art contests, but it is winning those too).
Also 2022, the first large language models become publicly accessible (ChatGPT, built on GPT3.5).
2023, ChatGPT's output in good enough lawyers use it to replace writing their own legal briefs (not a good idea) and asking ChatGPT to explain how to do things or what a given error message means has largely replaced asking professors or TAs for help when learning to program (personal experience).
Also 2023, Thousands of people are willing to pay $1/minute just to have phone calls with an AI clone of some person they follow on social media.
Also 2023, Amazon is flooded with self published books full of AI generated content and AI generated photos.
Also 2023, Television and movie writers have been striking for the past four months in part because they're genuinely worried about having their work replaced in whole or in part by ChatGPT and its siblings.
Overall we're not very good at predicting what AI will do 2-3 years from now, but based on the history of the last decade it'll continue to outperform humans in more and more arenas at an accelerating rate.
-
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.
-
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.
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).
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.
https://www.fool.com/research/largest-ev-companies/
-
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"?
Not sure you read what I said even though it's quoted.
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.
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).
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.
https://www.fool.com/research/largest-ev-companies/
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.
-
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.
For real. My industry is pedal to the floor trying to adjust. Simple prompts that save hours of time is great for my business but will have major ripples in future labor demand. That's before more real world robotic automation.
Also, this excerpt from the Walter Isaacson book has some key info on Giga Mexico and the next car platform:
https://www.axios.com/2023/09/08/walter-isaacson-elon-musk-book-excerpt (https://www.axios.com/2023/09/08/walter-isaacson-elon-musk-book-excerpt)
-
Potential for tech earnings appear to be taking hold with analysts. Morgan Stanley raised price target from $250 to $400 based on Dojo accelerating robotaxi completion and Dojo as a SAAS service.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-11/tesla-to-surge-thanks-to-dojo-supercomputer-morgan-stanley-says?embedded-checkout=true (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-11/tesla-to-surge-thanks-to-dojo-supercomputer-morgan-stanley-says?embedded-checkout=true)
-
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.
-
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.
For sure. Real worry for the company.
-
up nearly 10% today??
newsfeed seems to indicate due to dojo.
Pleasant surprise for the morning coffee reading.....
-
https://insideevs.com/news/687256/tesla-pepsico-covers-1600-miles-48-hours/ (https://insideevs.com/news/687256/tesla-pepsico-covers-1600-miles-48-hours/)
Awesome! But how much is it? 😅
-
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.
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).
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.
https://www.fool.com/research/largest-ev-companies/
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.
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.
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).
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.
https://www.fool.com/research/largest-ev-companies/
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.
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.
I said Tesla was the largest purchaser of batteries in the world. You said that wasn't accrurate by giving 2022 sales compared to BYD. So I asked you to do some math on battery sizes because just auto is more. You also completely ignored Tesla's energy division in battery purchasing. Tesla is the largest purchaser of batteries in the world. I'm not sure what you're even arguing here.
*It seems like you misunderstood I said Tesla was the largest purchaser of batteries vs largest “producer” of “EVs” in general and got real bent out of shape about it.
-
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.
And yeah, it’s completely accurate to say I don’t understand Tesla’s daily price moves.
I can’t process:
Institutional buying and selling
Options market pressure
Insider stock sale plans
Employee stock vesting
Retail buying and selling
Macro environment affects
Foreign investment fund activity
A litany of other things
So I’m going to keep investing in the future business activity I can model from company disclosures. Since you can process all these things on the daily, you must have access to information no one else does and an IQ of 1000. Good for you and good luck in your trading.
-
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.
Fortune Global 500 has BYD at spot 212, Tesla at 152.
That said, BYD is very likely to continue being a major EV competitor.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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
Their baseline scenario values "other" at $200M $200B, 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.
-
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.
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
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.
These "other" businesses are already significant and growing rapidly. For example energy is growing 100+% per year with mega pack backlog orders of 2+ years. FSD is already significant revenue even without full autonomy, potential for robotaxi and Optimus, etc.
Very real chance that other is more value than vehicle sales by 2030. They are already significant profit contributing with high growth so any realistic model would include them.
-
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.
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?
-
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.
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?
Sorry, typo on my part. It's $200 Billion. Yes, $200 million would be absurd.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
Sorry, I was thinking of the Wuling Mini EV and confused Chinese manufacturers.
-
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.
-
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.
-
New RWD Model Y in the USA:
https://electrek.co/2023/10/02/cheapest-model-y-ever-tesla-starts-selling-model-y-rwd-in-us-for-44k/
https://finance.yahoo.com/m/d89eddb8-35fd-30c2-be98-596739ae178c/tesla-relaunches-a-model-y-in.html
The currently not available Model Y AWD used 4680 cells. Speculation is Tesla need all the 4680s for the truck.
RWD Y looks to be a Chinese made battery like in the RWD Model 3. Probably need to buy this year to get the full tax credit.
-
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.
Yeah, it’s a fun tool. I wouldn’t set a 5% terminal value on Tesla after 2030, but it is extremely difficult to model after that so I get it. Its biggest weakness is knowing most equities aren’t valued with DCF models. On the bearish side of Tesla, this is definitely a strong argument for not investing in the stock, but it’s also just one of many valuation techniques and a really simplified model. Like if you only used DCF, lots of good stocks would be uninvestible.
Thanks for adding it. I like playing with those.
-
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.
We don’t need a WSJ tool to answer the title question of this thread. Since the start date of this thread TSLA stock price is up approximately 1,300%. Over that same period the S&P 500 is up approximately 50%. The question of this thread has been answered emphatically. Based on when it was asked in March 2018, Tesla has not been a “good” investment, it Tesla has been a phenomenal investment!
You are attempting to substitute a new question (or move the goal post). The question you are now putting forth is will Tesla continue to be a good investment? That’s a fair question, but does not change the fact that anyone that has bought and held Tesla stock for any extended period of time has done well with their investment. No good stock investment remains a good investment indefinitely. Plenty of folks have retired and made other life altering changes based on their TSLA gains.
I would also argue that the energy storage business is a profitable and proven winner that is growing exponentially. It will continue to grow as fast as Tesla can make or procure cells for the next decade at least. I would hardly characterize that as “catching lightening in a bottle.” Tesla didn’t catch lightening in a bottle with their auto business either like it was some happy accident of nature or blind luck. A lotta of vision and hard work to get where they are today. Folks who saw and shared that vision and invested accordingly, have been richly rewarded.
Tesla sold 10X the number of EVs as their closest “competition” in NA in 2022. Ford just cancelled plans for their battery plant. Mach-e sales are in decline. The UAW is striking and will continue to weigh down the Big 3’s ability to transition to EVs. The competition (with the possible exception of BYD) is no where in sight. Ford and GM are years away from profitability in their EV departments. Tesla is profitable, has virtually no debt and is sitting on $23 billion in reserve, despite pouring money back into the business (new plants, products and RND).
-
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.
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.
BESS is a global market. Tesla is building a battery storage factory in China to serve the Asian/South Pacific market. I agree Tesla’s storage products are similar to other offerings from the competitors you mention. Tesla may have a software advantage with Autobidder. It doesn’t really matter though. Global demand for these storage products is going to far exceed the global supply for the foreseeable future, so Tesla and anybody else that makes a competent product will sell every unit they can make and for a healthy margin (10-20%). Tesla may or may not end up the largest supplier, but there’s room for several companies to grow exponentially for the next decade plus. I think Wall Street is just starting to wake up to the potential here.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
Ok, fair enough. The BESS market will probably grow exponentially, especially as the world races to lower CO2 emissions.
However, BEV cars were a disruptive technology and Tesla got a huge head start. The BESS market has many competitors and Tesla might even be considered a laggard (CATL installed more BESS in 2021 than Tesla did in Q3x4). The question is, then, how much of a $1T?+ market can Tesla get when there are over 10 established companies and when China seems to favor Chinese companies?
The good news for Tesla is BESS installs look to be highly profitable.
-
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/05/business/hyundai-tesla-ev-charging/index.html
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.html
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.
I'm happy for this specific announcement. We have a 2022 Kia Niro. Gaining access to Tesla's network in Q12025 will make this a much better EV for us. Trade in/resale is far too low to consider anything other than keeping it for 5-10 years. It doesn't charge very fast, but access to SC's will be amazing as we will travel long distances at times for work.
-
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
-
Earning money and buying assets at 11...Awesome! My kids aren't old enough for that yet, but I'll try to point them in that kind of direction. That's so cool.
-
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
Nice!
-
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!
-
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!
Hope it's not like when car companies bought up transit lines in major cities across North America and then purposely mismanaged them to make them miserable to use and finally closed them.
-
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
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
-
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
LOL! hopefully he'll be buying a tesla in a few years! I'll be looking for the former-11-year-old cohort bump in sales. :)
-
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.
-
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.
From the second paragraph:
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.
-
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.
From the second paragraph:
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.
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.
-
Wow. Weird model.
A.) Robotaxi active in 2027
B.) Only $80 billion in Revenue from Robotax in 2033
C.) Energy revenue to only double by 2033 even though it's growing at 50% since just last year. With Lathrop scaling this year and a vertically integrated lithium refinery coming online next year, that's an odd forecast. *Misread what he said.
The auto business is the usual model to pick at, but I'm stunned the above are being modeled at all by him. If Robotaxi actually works, it's not a supplemental business item. It's THE business.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
"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.
Is "puts against" like shorting?
And how are politician who legislate allowed to do so? that part seems crazy!
-
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
-
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.
-
"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.
I don't trust Twitter as a news source. Is there another source?
-
A put option goes short with leverage. The closer $TSLA drops to the strike price ($190 in this case), the more its worth. If he sold already, he made a multiple of his investment.
I don't see any mainstream coverage of this story from X (formerly known as Twitter). I don't think this qualifies, but it's the closest I got:
https://www.benzinga.com/markets/equities/23/11/35843401/senators-bearish-tesla-bet-under-scrutiny-as-he-buys-put-options-ahead-of-elon-musk-led-companys
Newsweek covered the same Senator 3 weeks ago in another situation, where he knew a certain product was effective before the public.
https://www.newsweek.com/republican-senator-stock-trade-linked-russia-war-raises-eyerbrows-1820658
And if you want to move up the news quality chain to the more general question of members of Congress being investors, the New York Times covered it a year ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/13/us/politics/congress-stock-trading-investigation.html
-
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.
-
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!
TSLA has underperformed SPY by 52% and QQQ by 56% since January 1, 2021.
HODL'ing TSLA has been a disaster for the last 3+ 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?
-
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?
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)
Such is the risk of investing based on social media posts instead of fundamentals. Expect to see more of this.
-
Here's a slide show showing Musk's promises for self driving cars.
https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-tesla-self-driving-cars-anniversary-autopilot-1850432357
-
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
-
Q4 earnings have been described as a "train wreck" which was reflected yesterday in a 12% drop. Short-term movements shouldn't be an issue for long-term investors. But I'm wondering if more substantial issues over the past several weeks fundamentally change investing theses outline elsewhere on this thread.
So, questions for the TSLA faithful here:
As a stock holder, does it concern you that Musk is essentially violating his fiduciary duty as CEO by threatening to move AI/robotics to another company he owns and operates? Do you view this as a conflict of interest?
If the board gives Musk an additional 12% stake in TSLA this will dilute your shares. What are your thoughts on this, is it something you support to retain Musk?
If the board doesn't give Musk what he wants, it sounds like he will likely stop investing in areas that have been used to justify the unusually high valuation. He may even walk. How would this change your investing thesis?
On the earnings call Musk said Tesla is between two growth curves. In other words, they're on the downward slope of the previous growth curve, and not yet on the upward slope of the next curve, which isn't expect to start until at least mid-2025. But Musk himself admitted that his timelines are usually optimistic, so it could be 2026 or even 2027. What are your projections for future growth at this point?
EV demand has moderated. It's still growing, but growth is slowing. Rather than being supply constrained (as proposed earlier in the thread), EVs are now demand constrained. Do you view this as a temporary blip, or a longer term trend going forward?
Operating margins decreased to 8.2% which is in line with legacy automakers. Do you expect margins to improve in the quarters ahead?
Finally, has any of this motivated you to reduce your holdings, or do you view it as a buying opportunity?
-
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.
-
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.
I'd love to see more $25k EVs, something with decent range preferably with physical buttons and no touch screens. I agree, would sell well.
Care to provide some estimates? What would be the margins on such a vehicle? Volume? When do you foresee production ramping up? Is this sufficient to support current TSLA valuation?
-
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?
CNN interview with Musk from 2014:
https://twitter.com/CNNBusiness/status/517738916892270592
-
Thanks Paper Chaser and Tigerpine!
-
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.
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.
-
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
LOL! Now you are quoting someone else, with the same post/question, and I can't see why you are quoting them either!
-
Okay, good. It wasn't just me who was confused why that was an answer to my post which never used the word close, nor talked about how close or far Tesla was from achieving autonomous driving, just trying to figure out what Musk said when.
-
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.
Current shareholders get shares in both.
Tesla Motors gets valued for what it is: maker of the best electric cars. Musk has no control or leadership position.
Automation Systems and Solutions gets the premium valuation, though Musk will own a huge part of it.
-
Tesla stock plummets more than 10% after earnings miss expectations
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/tesla-stock-plummets-after-earnings-miss-expectations/story?id=106677405 (https://abcnews.go.com/Business/tesla-stock-plummets-after-earnings-miss-expectations/story?id=106677405)
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.
-
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
-
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
This may be my favorite comment on the forums this year.
-
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...
-
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.
I'd hope TSLA shareholders would revolt against any attempt to sell them down the river this way, but regarding toadies... one never knows.
-
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.
I'd hope TSLA shareholders would revolt against any attempt to sell them down the river this way, but regarding toadies... one never knows.
I admit I haven't followed it closely or looked into the details. But I've heard from a few people I trust with such things that Tesla is kind of a governance nightmare. I don't believe the board is considered to be very independent.
A quick glance at the website shows me that Elon's brother is on the board, as well as JB Straubel (who's company has a close business relationship with Tesla).
I personally think a truly independent board would have fired Musk a few years back. And then they would have sued him for fraud.
It's not like it's an accident Elon started promising clearly un-achievable engineering miracles immediately after he convinced the board to give him an unprecedented compensation package based solely on Tesla's market-cap. He pumped the stock up with bullshit products and unachievable timelines to enrich himself at shareholders expense. This is called fraud.
-
TSLA's 5-year performance is 56%/year. Investors who bought 5 years ago would have 9x their starting investment. Shareholders eager for high returns aren't going to fire a CEO with performance like that, nor begrudge him performance bonuses.
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnas/tsla/trailing-returns
"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.
-
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.
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.
-
Weird. Why would shares drop when shareholders get a court protecting their investment?
-
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.
The rejected 2018 comp plan was for 12 tranches of 1% stake in TSLA, so 12% total. Which is identical to Musk's demands for his next comp package.
I'm not an attorney, but my understanding is that the 2018 plan was voided for two reasons: 1) Musk had a controlling interest in Tesla at the time, i.e. he was self-dealing, and under Delaware corp law this triggers a higher standard where the board must prove the comp is reasonable, which they failed to do at trial. 2) Proxy statements provided to stockholders materially misrepresented the package, therefore the vote approving was invalid.
Legally Musk must be fairly compensated, so the board needs to approve a replacement comp plan. But they bear the burden of proof to show this is reasonable and fairly negotiated, rather than Musk negotiating against himself. A truly independent committee representing the interests of shareholders is unlikely to arrive anywhere near the same comp level.
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.
-
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.
Exactly. Tesla losing Musk is scary to both the stan HODLers, who will sell shares only when Tesla controls 25% of the world's car market, and those who realize that the stock value is supported by the stans. If Tesla loses Musk, the dream is over and the stans sell.
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.
Agreed. If $55B is "unfathomable," giving him $72B in options isn't gonna happen. Of course, the board is still beholden so we might see the same lawsuit next year.
-
The market may also be responding to a 10% decline in California Tesla registrations 2023Q4 along with a 10% drop in CA market share: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-california-registrations-fall-first-213325911.html
-
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.
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.
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.
And then they own TSLA.
-
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.
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.
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.
And then they own TSLA.
I'm not seeing how china owns tesla?
-
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.
-
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?
-
I mean, it's not like anything else newsworthy recently occurred that's relevant to this thread.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
-
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?
My Tesla robotaxi has the same value as your Tesla analysis..
-
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).
-
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.
-
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
-
Tesla was included in the S&P 500 on December 18, 2020, over three years ago at this point.
Since then, TSLA has underperformed the S&P 500 by over 50%.
So to answer the question of this thread, no, Tesla has not been a good long-term investment (unless you got in before ~August 2020 and haven't bought any more).
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
LOL, ok thanks for explaining. I took the "them" in your post to be china, not the retail investor.....was quite confused!
-
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.
-
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
If Tesla only grows an average of 35% a year going forward it’s a busted growth story? Does 50% YOY growth in energy storage factor at all? What about supercharger revenue? How much is a robot that can perform general work tasks on an assembly line potentially worth? Do you think Tesla sales will grow rapidly when they introduce a $25k EV in 2025? What about over 2 million Cyber truck reservations? Tesla semi?
-
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.
I’ve never discounted BYD’s competitiveness. I have said there’s room for BYD and Tesla to both be successful. Though it should be noted that BYD’s margin on their 2023 vehicles was close to zero. The advantage of scale is supposed to be profitability. Meanwhile Ford, GM, VW, and Stellantis are basically giving up on competing with Tesla on the EV front, cancelling the plans you all touted on here as “the competition is coming to crush Tesla” when they announced their ambitious EV plans years ago. None of them reached volume or hit their targets and they’re now scaling back or throwing in the towel. Japanese manufacturers are even worse as they deny reality and continue to push hydrogen or insist ICE still has a future.
I’ve never put a date on the robotaxi. I’ve never included robotaxi as a core tenet of my investment thesis, but keep beating that dead horse if it makes you feel better.
-
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?
-
Though it should be noted that BYD’s margin on their 2023 vehicles was close to zero.
IBD claims otherwise.
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.
Margins are ambiguous though. Have a source that states BYD's margins are close to 0?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
Tesla automotive margins were up Q4 over Q3. Tesla is decreasing prices to capture market share, squash competition and remains profitable at healthy margins, especially compared to every US and European legacy automaker that are still losing money on every EV they sell. Tesla energy margins expanded in 2023 and they grew energy revenue 50% YOY.
No company growing as fast as Tesla can sustain 50% YOY growth indefinitely. So, no, for a long term investor, 35% versus 50% doesn’t really matter to me.
My investment thesis has never depended on FSD/robotaxi being solved. You can go back through this thread. I’ve always viewed that as gravy and thought Elon was overly optimistic. That said, there is evidence that v12 is vastly improved over v11, which coincides with Tesla’s shift from thousands of lines to code to machine learning (vision based) as the basis for FSD.
Cybertruck is new and has over 2 million reservations. Gen 3 Model and new manufacturing process already in the works with initial production slated for late 2025.
Model Y was the best selling vehicle in the world of any kind in 2023.
Global EV sales continue to grow and Tesla is maintaining or growing market share across all markets they are in.
Teslas margins will expand as interest rates drop, likely this year, and auto loans become cheaper.
Tesla seizing market share in Europe.
VW, Ford, GM, and Stellantis scaling back EV plans because they can’t get to scale and are hemorrhaging cash.
Musk didn’t offer an ultimatum on shares. He doesn’t want more shares for economic reasons and said the additional shares can be voting shares only. He wants to have a say on how very powerful AI tools are used down the road.
Tesla expanding to new countries, most recently Malaysia and Chile.
You are plain wrong on a number of fronts. Anyone can throw shade using the headlines of the day. Go back through this thread and that’s all you’ll see. People throwing shade because 5 years ago, QOQ sales in Belgium were down 50%, Tesla is doomed! All the while missing the forest for the trees.
We can throw numbers at each other all day. EVs and energy storage are the future. Tesla is still the leader (outside of BYD in China) in EVs and Energy Storage. No need to complicate what is fundamentally simple.
-
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.
Ford, GM, VW, Honda, Toyota, etc would love to be as “demand limited” as Tesla, which sold 1.8 million pure BEVs profitably despite offering essentially 2 vehicles. Imagine how demand limited Tesla will be when the $25K Gen 3 vehicles come out next year. How many Mach-e did Ford sell last year? Wanna talk about demand constrained, yikes.
Cybertruck has over 2 million reservations. Perhaps you’re unaware but production ramps start slow and then speed up. The best selling car in the world, Tesla Model Y, started with “a few hundred units” just a few years ago.
If Tesla wants to juice demand they can lower margins further, put even more squeeze to the rest of the industry and increase market share further. It’s called pricing control and Tesla is using it to destroy the “the competition” while waiting for the interest rate environment to improve.
-
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.
No offense, but you’re not paying attention if you think the refreshed model 3 was a “modest redesign". Tesla Model 3 refresh (Highlander) was a significant overhaull. Not in appearance, though I think it improved there as well, but in some very meaningful ways. Might want to double check that.
Also, what does it say about Tesla that it can sell 1.8 million vehicles in 2023 while essentially offering two models for sale? Do you not believe Tesla will launch new, cheaper vehicles in the future? Do you think the Cybertruck will not reach its production capacity of 250k/yr in 2025?
Tesla vehicles have the highest safety ratings and highest customer satisfaction ratings of any mass produced car on the road, so you’re gonna have to show me something more than anecdotal evidence of widespread quality issues at Tesla above and beyond what is typical for the industry.
I remember when people said Tesla will:
never make a compelling EV.
never make a compelling EV at scale.
never make and sell a compelling EV at scale for a profit.
get crushed by legacy auto in 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 for sure.
-
Cybertruck has had over 2 million reservations.
* at $40k, 500 mile range.
Nope, 2 million reservations was confirmed during an interview with Tesla’s lead CT engineer approximately two weeks after the delivery event and vehicle pricing release. Plenty of time for folks to cancel. Was also reported that reservation to order conversion rate has been good so far. If Tesla only converts half the current reservations, that’s still four years worth of production out of Austin once they hit the 250k/yr production capacity.
-
As of today, TSLA is down 49% from the date of your post
I, 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.
-
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.
I’m supposed to admit I was wrong, even though everything I said would come to pass in 2012 has come to fruition?
I think we’re done here.
-
As of today, TSLA is down 49% from the date of your post
I, 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.
-
As of today, TSLA is down 49% from the date of your post
I, 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?
Because the company is not the stock price. Unless one is forced to sell, the short to medium term stock price volatility is meaningless, only the long term execution matters. If Tesla the company is performing and I’m a long-term investor, the risk is greatly reduced.
-
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.....
-
As of today, TSLA is down 49% from the date of your post
I, 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 think so too. It is a worry.
-
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.....
With my right hand on a stack of bibles.
-
...
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.
Elon Musk has an inflated sense of importance... while everyone talks about him? (*)
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
(*)
"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
Musk and his supporters have tried to spin the narrative of an activist judge taking away his compensation. I would just encourage folks to read the ruling and/or hear from legal experts that can explain more of the details of the case. This is a fairly narrow ruling, by a highly regarded and experienced judge, backed by lots of precedent, and specific to Tesla and Musk. It is centered on corporate governance, which Musk is now learning has real consequences. Musk's self-dealing is the only reason the court got involved in his compensation, and the proxy vote approving his pay was ruled invalid only because the proxy materials misled stockholders. None of this would have been an issue if Musk negotiated his pay package with an independent board.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
yes, and I found that to be a mild response to your posts. I am glad to see you were not intending to be the way it came across to me, so I will go through and the posts and try to illustrate what I thought was off for the examples you would like.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
I was asked. you could take your own advice, btw.
-
Take my own advice on what?
-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.
FWIW, my admittedly terse response to FINRate is a reflection of the overall tone of his post and the sections bolded by Misty above. I did answer his/her question in my response even though I was under no obligation. A second post from FINrate demanding a response to his/her question like they were entitled to an answer satisfactory to them was off-putting for sure. I don’t care if others see Tesla differently. I’ve been very consistent in my approach and I don’t get emotional based on stock price movement or even care about the short term stock price movements, so understand my frustration when the bears jump on here every time the SP takes a dip to take a victory lap (even though Tesla is still 9X from the start of this thread), while in my view ignoring the company's performance and execution.
-
If you don't like that, I guess don't participate in the forum?
Sure, but I have no problem with vigorous debate, so there is no reason for me not to.
Obviously I have failed to communicate something here.
-W
-
Thanks @mistymoney and @ColoradoTribe for providing feedback backed with an example for me to consider. Tone is very difficult to communicate on a forum, so I can see how my posts could be seen as hostile. I want to be clear, that's not my intention. I will sincerely try to be more aware of this in the future.
That said, one of the main things I appreciate about this forum is how folks generally hash out disagreements while respectfully focusing on the central arguments. It's worth noting the forum rules here: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/
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.)
The graph of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement is worth a glance.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg/500px-Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg.png)
I really do try to stay at near the top of this hierarchy as much as possible. My response to ColoradoTribe, essentially responding to his tone, is further down the hierarchy than I'd like. I'm not perfect, I make mistakes, which is why I appreciate constructive feedback.
This is why I built a line of reasoning around a direct quote from ColoradoTribe and then pushed for a clear and direct response on this specific quote. Other than finding ways to soften the tone, I don't know that I would change the substance of what I wrote. Obviously ColoradoTribe is not in a court of law and is free to walk away at any point, but I'm glad they didn't and remained engaged in the conversation. A big part of disagreement is understanding the other side's point of view. In this case, that ColoradoTribe, even with the benefit of hindsight, does not consider TSLA circa 2021Q4 a risky investment. That's surprising to me (and apparently others on this thread), so thanks for the direct response.
Some feedback for ColoradoTribe: Calling me "grand inquisitor" likely falls in (or very near) ad hominem territory ("Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument."). And "poorly informed internet geniuses" is likely getting into name calling.
One final thought: This thread is essentially a multi-year disagreement over TSLA. I have my opinion, others have theirs... and that's fine. If TSLA was only up and to the right over the past two years I would expect the bulls to do victory laps, nothing wrong with that. But that's not what has happened with TSLA. This isn't just about stock price, but also 2023Q4 results, Musk's comp package, and so many other topics. There's a lot to talk about, so don't be surprised when those bearish on TSLA post here. That's part of the deal.
-
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
The judge called the amount "unfathomable" in open court. It looks like the amount and lack of an independent board were both factors the judge considered.
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
-
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
-
Tesla at Friday’s closing price is up 9X since the start date of this thread.
Is Tesla a good investment?
Yes
Everybody take the rest of the week off.
-
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.
-
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.
OK, I guess. Seems a bit arbitrary to make that the defining start point. I also seem to recall there was a lot of front running on Tesla in the run up to its inclusions because WS and investors knew funds mirroring the S&P 500 were going to be forced to buy millions of Tesla shares following the announcement, which artificially inflated the price of TSLA prior to inclusion.
Regardless, long-term investors have faired well. Short-term holders who sold in under five years in the period between 2013 and 2019, or 2020 to present, more hit or miss.
Tesla gains:
5 years = ~800%
Start of the thread = ~900%
10 years = ~1500%
Since IPO = ~14,000%
Good thing Mustachians are investors and not traders/speculators. It is called the investor thread after all.
-
"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.
-
"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.
:P
-
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.
-
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.
I think bgs is referring to the earlier recall in December related to Autopilot: https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-recalls-defects/tesla-recalls-cars-due-to-autopilot-concerns-a6186663858/
Here's more about the report on Tesla's having the highest accident rate: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebanker/2023/12/18/tesla-has-the-highest-accident-rate-of-any-auto-brand/?sh=619130192894
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.
I've wondered if the cause is very fast acceleration with a very heavy vehicle. This wouldn't be Tesla specific, will have to see as more studies are done.
-
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 :
(https://digitalassets.tesla.com/tesla-contents/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/safety-report-2023-desktop.jpg)
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
-
I just read that Tesla recently won a case concerning autopilot and a fatal crash. Living in this smaller, pick-em-up-truck town; I wasn't totally aware that we are already Tesla beta-test "obstacles" while out driving on the public roads (as Tesla collects data.) For now, the human driver is supposed to immediately take over in case of any potential crash situation. I do hope all of these beta-test drivers with "FSD" subscriptions are paying attention and not getting complacent, especially as the system improves and matures.
Also, I see that Tesla offered to license their competitors to use their FSD technology. Why in the world would they do that if it would ever come into its projected robo-taxi ability?
When you watch traffic patterns in a crazy-looking traffic-circle in places like Naples Italy it all appears to be so organic, like a school of fish. Constant communication using horns, hand gestures, head nods. It seems to be based on a few simple rules, but with full situational awareness. Of course; it only took one tourist like me to screw it all up. There is the rub with any integrated system.
-
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?
The one you quoted shows that both with and without autopilot, Telsa's drive many more miles between accidents either with or without autopilot engaged than the average for the rest of the US fleet.
Drunk drivers have many fewer miles between accidents than the average for the rest of the auto fleet since they crash into things more frequently.
Edit: Also it looks like the average number of miles driven between accidents while on autopilot rose from ~3 million in 2019 to ~6 million in 2023, cutting the frequency of accidents in half.
-
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.
-
I read an interview with an automotive safety expert that said EVs were involved in more accidents than ICE cars for a given amount of use. He didn't specify Teslas in particular. His reasons were:
- heavier and harder to slow down
- faster acceleration
- one pedal driving
- use of auto driving modes
- people had many decades of ICE experience and were just learning how to drive EVs in the more challenging situations
He did suggest that given enough time people would adapt and the differential in accidents between EVs and ICE vehicles would become smaller.
-
@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.)
-
@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.
-
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?
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.
tl;dr The Tesla Safety Report is marketing.
* https://hedgescompany.com/blog/2018/11/tesla-owner-demographics/
** https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2022/01/30/musk-left-california-but-it-still-loves-tesla-brand-has-75-share-of-states-ev-market/
-
@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.
Okay, thank you.
-
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.
-
bacchi - I get "permission denied" visiting the 2018 demographics link you provided.
Hmm, weird. I'm using Brave and maybe the blocking helps access it.
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.
I'm not surprised that Autopilot is safer for drivers. Awareness of other vehicles makes driving safer. What would be interesting is seeing Autopilot vs other assist programs. I suspect the difference wouldn't be as stark as between Autopilot vs non-Autopilot.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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?
Ignoring 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.
-
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?
Ignoring 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.
-
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.
Eh? What data makes Tesla look bad?
The Tesla Vehicle Safety Report doesn't mean what people want it to mean but that doesn't mean it's not true. It just means that this simple graph doesn't show it. I'm sure Tesla could display that data by narrowing its comparison -- it could remove drivers under 25 and over 70, for example, instead of using the average.
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
# of cars * VMT
-
Q1 deliveries were reported today and it was a significant miss. The Tesla stans may accuse me of just picking on the stock on down days, but this is newsworthy and a material release of information. Next stop is Q1 earnings later this month.
TSLA currently down 6%, will see where it heads in the days ahead. Though I'm less interested in short-term stock movements, the real story here is YoY decline in deliveries. Can't be Chinese New Year, which happens every year. Can't be the fire in Germany or other supply chain issues because they produced more cars than delivered (i.e. demand constrained). As Tesla bull Dan Ives put it (https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/02/business/tesla-sales/index.html):
“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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Best engineering talent in the business.
An energy storage and services business growing 50% YOY.
Tesla charging standard (NACS) is now the standard foe the entire North American car industry and will be a growing and ongoing source of revenue ($13/month/car).
Interest rate cuts on the horizon.
Tesla dominating legacy auto and their attempts failed to move towards EV.
Tesla Model Y is the best selling car on any kind in the world in 2023.
FSD is improving rapidly under Tesla’s new approach (vision + neural net). Other auto manufacturers will license FSD like they license the supercharger network.
Optimus robot will be working the factory floor before the end of the year. Huge potential.
Tesla Semi mass production in late 2024 or early 2025.
Cheaper Model 2 ($25k EV) in late 2025.
No real competition outside of China. BYD only other profitable EV maker in the world beside Tesla.
Tesla expanding into new markets, including hard to tap India.
Tesla has virtually no advertising budget and has several demand levers it can pull.
Mature competition in the US is especially misinformed. Ford lost $64k per EV they sold in 2023. Building prototypes is easy, none of the legacy autos are close to the scale that would enable profitability in their EV divisions.
https://www.newgeography.com/content/008083-ford-lost-47b-evs-last-year#:~:text=The%20company%20sold%2072%2C608%20EVs,EV%20it%20sold%20in%202023.
-
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.
I don’t know. I’ve been invested since 2013 and just purchased my first Tesla on March 20. There were several factors affecting production this quarter. Chinese NY, Berlin arson, new Model 3 ramp at Fremont, Suez Canal supply chain issues for Giga Berlin. Those production delays likely also pushed pack shipments, leading to more cars than usual in transport at the end of the quarter. EV sales are still increasing. 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. 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. Under $25k for those of us in Colorado.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
I expect to see the first Tesla advertisements in late 2024.
They've been increasing ads for awhile now.
https://cleantechnica.com/2024/04/02/tesla-marketing-campaign-takes-a-slightly-traditional-turn/
-
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
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
Ignoring the anti-EV tone of the first article you cite, it buries the lead mid article:
With inventory on dealer lots growing toward pre-pandemic levels, auto companies were forced to reduce prices. J.D. Power said the average sales price in March was $44,186, down 3.6% from a year ago and the largest recorded decline for the month of March.
Legacy auto counts a car as sold when it delivers that car to the dealer even though there is not a buyer lined up for that car. So, inventory on dealer lots is approaching pre-pandemic levels with many brands having record number of days of inventory sitting on lots. This despite these same dealers lowering prices by 3.6% from a year ago. So, these deliveries aren’t deliveries at all and I maintain the slowdown was across the board.
Edited to add link:
https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/new-vehicle-inventory-january-2024/
So, 2.61 million vehicles sitting in inventory as of late Feb, a 50% jump YOY, but these vehicles are all considered “deliveries” once they hit the dealer lot. By comparison, Tesla doesn’t count a car as delivered until it reaches the buyer who in most cases has already bought and paid for the car, so Tesla inventory numbers are actually exaggerated and delivery number underestimated using legacy metrics.
-
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)
Are you looking at inventory vehicles (see tab on Tesla.com homepage). Inventory vehicles are those delivered to distribution centers that weren’t custom orders. Still new vehicles, but typically offered at discounts of $3k - $5k, which I believe is the difference in what you are seeing and what I posted above.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
A lot of good points.
I don't know what a true "good" PE is, but I think anything in the 15-25x range is defensible. But you also have to apply that to the assumption of lower earnings that are coming up on lower deliveries. Also, when growth stocks correct, they tend to move well below fair value before reverting to something reasonable. I wouldn't be surprised to see the stock fall another 50-75% before recovering.
I don't see FSD as being some savior for revenue or valuation. I'm sure they can improve uptake a bit with better marketing and trials. But $200/mo is a steep price that isn't going to move the needle on their $100B in revenue. Selling 10,000 new subscriptions would equate to a ~2% revenue bump. It's not nothing, but it's not going to be the dominant story of the company. I tried it in my Tesla the other day with the mandated free trial. It was better than I expected, but I don't see anyone other than diehard super commuters spending $200/mo on it.
Most of the commentary on business conditions reflects on the US. Which is all true. Some of it is macro, and some of it is Musk douchebaggery.
China is a huge ignored part of the story. I don't pretend to understand the China market well, but it does sound like Chinese nationalism is playing a role. Competition from the likes of BYD and NIO seems to be fierce as well. China is a cutthroat market for EV's, and Tesla's competitive advantage there seems to have eroded pretty bad. Tesla still has the advantage of a growing market, but likely lower market share and lower margins on increased competition.
The EV market as a whole has hit the "trough of disillusionment" here in the US. Other markets seems to have avoided that. I think the next 2-3 years are going to determine which EV companies will come out the other side stronger. Tesla will be one of those companies, but that doesn't make the stock a good buy at these prices.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Fair enough. However, it seems a bit odd that you question my purchasing shares without having completed some sort of numerical valuation model, but then you say you don’t need a valuation to know its not worth owning the stock? Seems its fair to say we are both comfortable with our respective decisions.
-
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.
You wrote: "New Tesla Model Y for less than $30k after federal tax credit. Under $25k for those of us in Colorado."
That isn't correct. Above I posted the price for an ordered car.
As of this posting, I just went to Tesla.com, and the cheapest RWD Tesla Model Y in my area for an inventory car is this:
Vehicle Price $44,990
Price Adjustment -$3,150
Destination fee $1,390
Order Fee $250
Your Model Y $43,480
After Federal Tax Credit $35,980
Not "under $30k", obviously.
Your example in Colorado isn't "under $25k", and you're forgetting the Destination fee and Order Fee.
I'm about 3/4 way through Elon (the biography). It's really good, recommended.
-
Tesla scraps low-cost car plans amid fierce Chinese EV competition
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/05/tesla-scraps-low-cost-car-plans-amid-fierce-chinese-ev-competition-reuters.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/05/tesla-scraps-low-cost-car-plans-amid-fierce-chinese-ev-competition-reuters.html)
So there will be no model 2. Tesla will remain a niche luxury car company and will instead try to build robotic taxis.
IMO this is the much riskier path, dependent upon not-yet-existent and not-yet-approve tech, but Tesla can no longer assume they'll be able to build in China and sell in the U.S. so here we are.
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.
-
Whoa, if true scrapping the 2 is big news. Reuters is pretty trustworthy and looks like they've done their homework.
The 2 would have been on our short list of options when we're in the market for an EV.
A shift to expensive niche markets helps explain Cybertruck.
-
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.
-
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.
So, Tesla didn’t scrap the Model 2 according to Musk and the stock price recovered all its lost ground in after hours when it was announced Tesla will reveal the RT prototype in August.. Best guess, production of Model 2 final configuration will depend on FSD progress. So, either Tesla produces a $25Kish EV for private ownership OR the world's first truly autonomous robotaxi. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Having driven the latest versions of FSD the last three days I can say it is getting close.
-
Or neither, though. Musk announces stuff all the time. His track record isn't great, however.
-W
-
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.
-
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.
Yeah, his announcements also seem to arrive when there's bad news from Tesla numbers. This is fairly consistent and, if there's an announcement released before the quarterly sales or earnings, is a pretty good indicator that there will be a miss.
Ignore the declining profit margin, we're releasing the Cybertruck!
Ignore the sales miss and record excess inventory, the Robotaxi is on its way! (Prediction: Q1 earnings will be a disaster.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 have! A friend has it and I rode with him the other day. It is indeed much improved. But it doesn't change my assessment. It's still level-2 automation. I'll say it again, getting that last 1% or even 0.5% fo full level-5 in all situations is the hard part.
I'll stick my neck out and elaborate on my prediction for what will happen on 8/8. Elon will stand on a stage before adoring fans and a vehicle based on what the Model 2 platform would have been will drive onto stage. When the "driver" door opens it will reveal no driver and no steering wheel. It will use some variation of steer-by-wire from CT. Videos will show RoboTaxi/CyberTaxi/xTaxi (or whatever it's called) navigating various situations w/o a human driver. And Musk will say the first models will be available mid 2025 with ramp up 2026. But it will all be highly curated and regulatory issues will ultimately be blamed for continuing delays.
-
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.
or maybe needed just a wee bit more data?
-
mistymoney, that's certainly possible. But I would be shocked if what was it. The Tesla folks have to be drowning in data of equivalent or better quality from all the people who already bought or subscribe to FSD.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKb5Wj2WQAEc5nG?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
(Source is Tesla's twitter feed so take with a grain of salt.)
-
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.
-
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.
Totally possible. :P
My suspicion is that it has more to do with Tesla's 'Full Self Driving' sales push. FSD doesn't sell as well if there's a lawsuit about it killing someone.
-
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?
It's about... a billion times easier to say something than to do it.
-
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:
My commitment:
- 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.
- https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433)
-
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:
My commitment:
- 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.
- https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433)
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.
-
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 part of the story that muddles the clear intent of Elon's statement is:
"Tesla has reached a settlement with the family of a driver who died in a 2018 crash involving the company’s driver-assistance technology Autopilot, days before attorneys were poised to deliver opening statements." ( bolding mine)
Why push the case until close to trial date to settle? That smacks of someone judging their ability to win, not determining the merits of the 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?
He might have made a similar but different claim in the past? The 2022 one I was referencing:
My commitment:
- 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.
- https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433)
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.
Cruise control is control of the speed that the vehicle cruises along at. There is no confusion there.
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".
-
A quick note on terminology:
Huang's Tesla crashed in 2018 while autopilot was engaged. Autopilot is just autosteer to remain in your lane + adaptive cruise control, something a large number of car companies provide to drivers these days.
The very first beta version of full self driving, which did things like recognize stop signs and stop lights and make turns, wasn't released to anyone until 2020, well after the incident we're discussing.
-
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:
My commitment:
- 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.
- https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433)
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.
Seems 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.”
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:
My commitment:
- 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.
- https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433)
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.
Seems like other manufacturers with similar driving aids have figured out ways to avoid misuse like this.
... by less aggressively over-promising technologies that aren't yet mature
-
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:
My commitment:
- 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.
- https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433)
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.
Seems like other manufacturers with similar driving aids have figured out ways to avoid misuse like this.
... by less aggressively over-promising technologies that aren't yet mature
Specific over-promises that Tesla is being sued over using:
- "Full Self-Driving Capability"
- "The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long-distance
trips with no action required by the person in the driver's seat."
- "From Home - All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where
to go. If you don't say anlthing, your car will look at your calendar and take you
there as the assumed destination. Your Tesla will figure out the optimal route,
navigating urban streets, complex intersections and freeways.
To your Destination - When you arrive at your destination, simply step out at the entrance and your car
will enter park seek mode, automatically search for a spot and park itself. A tap on
your phone summons it back to you."
And also mentioned that:
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.
- https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22128017/california-dmv-complaint-against-tesla-2.pdf (https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22128017/california-dmv-complaint-against-tesla-2.pdf)
There's also the other lawsuit by shareholders against Tesla for making false claims about the capabilities and safety of and Full Self-Driving:
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(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;
- 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)
-
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.
-
See also: https://x.com/garageklub/status/1779571445930324456 (video of flimsy pedal covers)
Holy crap, that's dangerous!
-
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.
While I try not to read too much into day-to-day stock moves, I'd really expect this to give the stock a reasonable bump on the news. This should theoretically be giving investors confidence in bottom-line growth, even if top-line growth stalled out. I'm struggling to find a compelling story for being valued like a growth company at this point.
And this isn't just a comparative statement to other automakers. Pretty much all non-Tesla, non-Chinese companies are incinerating cash in their EV business. They've mostly invested billions to the point of making "bet the company" type decisions on the EV transition. And the market isn't scaling fast enough to recoup the cost of those investments. Looking at automaker companies right now is looking at who is going to survive and who isn't. I don't think there's a compelling case for earnings growth in the bunch.
To say this is disappointing is an understatement. Climate change is an existential threat to our national security and to the world's habitability. De-carbonizing the world (or not) is probably the most important thing our generation will be remembered for. I want to see the EV transition take hold. We need to figure out how to make it work. But right now, the math is saying that we're mostly going to be vaporizing billions of dollars in capital, only to see a few automakers survive the carnage.
-
Cruise control is control of the speed that the vehicle cruises along at. There is no confusion there.
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".
In some places they are now calling it "Full Self-Driving (Supervised)".
https://www.tesla.com/support/articles/30-day-fsd-trial
On the car page ordering it's still "Full Self-Driving Capability"
"Receive one month trial of Full-Self Driving Capability with a new vehicle purchase.
Your car will be able to drive itself almost anywhere with minimal driver intervention and will continuously improve."
Misleading, but surely by now anyone with a Tesla or contemplating purchase knows that it can't actually be trusted drive itself.
Oh, and the price has gone up. Now the cheapest RWD Y for me is:
Your Model Y $45,510
After Federal Tax Credit* $38,010
Not "less than $30k" yet. Maybe in a few months.
-
Can someone explain to me the benefit of having a vehicle drive itself around if you have to:
- Constantly watch and second guess every decision that the vehicle makes
- Constantly have your foot ready to hit the brake
- Constantly have your hands ready to take control of the wheel
It seems like you would have all the boredom, attention stealing, and discomfort of regular driving. What's the selling point? All I can come up with is that a large percentage of people are using Tesla's Full Self Driving software as though it was ready for Full Self Driving and not doing those things.
-
Can someone explain to me the benefit of having a vehicle drive itself around if you have to:
I have not figured that out. Smart cruise control makes sense and then after that more capability it seems pointless until you get to a car that can fully autonomously drive itself safely. Now of course to get to full autonomous mode you need a shit ton of alpha and beta testing. If you can get consumers to pay to be beta testers that is a good thing for the car company. Not so sure what's in it for the consumer.
-
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?" The car also seems to do a better job of noticing and stopping for people waiting to cross in unprotected crosswalks than I do myself.
Two weeks into the trial and, after getting comfortable the first day, the only time I've intervened was when the car made a left turn and was following a car that turned into the same lane from the opposite direction more closely than I was comfortable with.
-
I'm also on the FSD free trial, although my wife mostly drives the car.
It's novel, and it performs much better than my low expectations. I was pretty impressed at how it performed, and I say that as someone who can't stand Tesla's hyperbole.
But would I pay for it? No. I could maybe see it if I had a very long stop-and-go commute. It's really a novelty beyond that.
-
threads like this just won't die will they?
Despite that the OP is a silly question - of course it depends on the price if its a good investment or not. At the current price I think its still very risky given that the growth story has hit the rocks.
Remember people were trying to justify the valuations near peak when its market cap was greater than the rest of the car manufacturing industry put together... and Cathie Wood is still a fan.. which means you probably shouldn't go near it with a barge pole.
-
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 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.
So you find it useful when you do what Tesla has said cannot and should not be done by their drivers? :P
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?"
This seems like a pretty great benefit actually. Navigation to new places can be really tricky. I could see it being a huge boon to a taxi driver or someone who ubers a lot.
-
Might be more useful is some places than others.
-
Funny picture! Neither of them hold a candle to Mumbai, though.
When will Tesla start an FSD pilot program here?
-
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.
-
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 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
-
Sounds like the Elon touch of excellence that you're describing there.
-
I think it has been a toxic place for a while now. Layoffs will make morale worse.
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
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.
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 think it has been a toxic place for a while now. Layoffs will make morale worse.
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
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.
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.
Seems like the people willing to sacrifice years of their early lives on the alter of work might be better off as entrepreneurs.
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.
-
I think it has been a toxic place for a while now. Layoffs will make morale worse.
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
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.
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.
Seems like the people willing to sacrifice years of their early lives on the alter of work might be better off as entrepreneurs.
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.
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..
But it was also stupid and was a trap in retrospect. Especially more so when you are at unfair and toxic place.
Also it doesn't do organization any good either. When you are not resourced properly you are also setting up your service to fail within the organization.
-
I think it has been a toxic place for a while now. Layoffs will make morale worse.
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
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.
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.
Seems like the people willing to sacrifice years of their early lives on the alter of work might be better off as entrepreneurs.
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.
my first post-masters job was similar in expectation - but data analysis not tech. gruelling hours around quarterly reports for clients and not great pay. Young workforce that was really trying to get experience and start a career. A lot of really great people it was great to work with. Management not so much! Looking back definitely feel they took advantage of us!
But I don't think you are seeing this clearly. What exactly would people be entrpreneurs of? For a tesla engineer - Evs are out I think as too big to take on. Small ideas? apps? household robotics? what would they do?
A failed business usually leaves you in the hole after scrapping by for months if not years to try to build the business. I would think a laid off tesla engineer was getting at least a decent regular paycheck even if underpaid, benefits, 401k match etc. company stock?
Someone with a failed business was likely not saving, matching retirement, etc. People I know who had a failed business were usually left thousands in debt from trying to make it work rather than someone laid off suddenly who is going to get vacation days paid out (no severance?), transfer their 401k into a rollover, and if they have a chunky EF fund that was on them to save for. Some one who's business trully bottomed is in a not very good spot.
-
I think it has been a toxic place for a while now. Layoffs will make morale worse.
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
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.
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.
Seems like the people willing to sacrifice years of their early lives on the alter of work might be better off as entrepreneurs.
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.
Sure, but you need some experience first. That's what I did. Worked hard for someone else for a few years. I went off on my own as soon as I was able. Haven't had a job since. 70% of my career has been running my small firm or as an independent contractor. My dad was a hard-working serial entrepreneur, so that was definitely a factor.
I took a tour of a company only this week that makes equipment for vehicle manufacturing lines. Very interesting. That's the kind of area an ex-Tesla employee could get into. Or software, of course.
But what about that Tesla? $148 premarket. Getting interesting again.
-
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.