Is Tesla a good investment?

[ChpBstrd]

All new cars are basically disposable junk these days.

They want them to be junk so you buy a new one every 7 years

What is your criteria for considering cars "disposable junk", and how are those objectively measured and compared to cars from a different time period?

I think the easiest comparison would be a car from 1985 with a metal body and a gasoline engine / transmission that would be lucky to last 100-150K miles. Now an EV tends to be so wrapped in plastic shrouding that you cannot see anything that could be repaired or worked on... but the battery and electric motors are expected to easily last 150K miles, if not a lot more.

What other parts are factored into this analysis? Are there studies that have quantified how long the various parts, and the whole package last?

Has the average length of car ownership in the U.S. decreased from 12 years to a (much) shorter timeframe?

Anecdotal, but my parents' 1991 Chevy Lumina ate its own oil pump at 80,000 miles. The worst car I ever owned, a 1991 GMC Sonoma, leaked from 100% of the places it held fluids. My dad's Ford F150 made a decade later was sold running and driving with 200,000 miles. My Ford Ranger of the same era rusted a hole in a metal coolant line and started squirting at 140,000 miles, so I got rid of it, figuring the head gasket wasn't far behind.

OTOH, my SIL's 2018 Kia just had its engine replaced on warranty at 45,000 miles. My neighbor's Jeep has had somewhere between four and six transmission rebuilds under warranty at under 100,000 miles. Those two brands are truly disposable. At least the Kia/Hyundai's are cheap. A 2025 Kia K4 sells for $25k brand new, about 10k less than a Honda or Toyota, and on par with a 5 year old Accord or Camry. If you see one driving around it might be a dealership loaner while the driver's car is getting a new engine or transmission.

[Juan Ponce de León]

There's a lot of survivorship bias going into that 'average age' chart.  Most mechanics will tell you about how bad new cars are getting, I guess the only saving grace is that warranty periods are generally getting longer.  2015 onwards is getting grim.  Kia/Hyundai have become true disposable cars with unrebuildable engines that are lucky to last the warranty period before expiring.  Most cars these days have Direct injection, low tension piston rings, long oil-change intervals, oil spec as thin as water, 10 year coolant life, transmissions with 'lifetime fluid', CVT transmissions, large cars moving to smaller and smaller turbo engines, all these things designed to pretend the car has lower emissions and running costs come at a price.  If your engine lasts 8 years instead of 20+, was it really economical?  I have 2 cars one is over 20 years old and the other over 30 years old, both on original drivetrains.  I just can't see that being the case for many new cars sold today.

Oh and EVs.  Expected to last 150,000 miles or longer?  Lets see how that works out.  Most EV buyers seem to be swapping cars every couple of years and they are copping brutal depreciation for the privilege.  There must be some reason the used car market doesn't value used EVs as a viable long-term vehicle.

[neo von retorch]

Oh and EVs.  Expected to last 150,000 miles or longer?  Lets see how that works out.  Most EV buyers seem to be swapping cars every couple of years and they are copping brutal depreciation for the privilege.  There must be some reason the used car market doesn't value used EVs as a viable long-term vehicle.

https://www.nada.org/nada/nada-headlines/us-consumers-keep-vehicles-record-125-years-average-sp-reuters

Certainly... since most electric cars have been purchased in the past few years... they are quite new. And those that can afford expensive EVs likely tend to replace their car every 3 years, or they bought a budget Leaf and switched to something newer with greater range. But there's no proof that these cars are dying.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=63904

Virtually no cars sold in the U.S. were electric before 2020 - practically a rounding error.

https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-reliability-owner-satisfaction/what-is-a-reasonable-life-span-for-a-modern-car-a4678774857/

Estimates 200K miles for ICE and 300K miles for EV. Though it certainly is a thought of considering miles vs years. 20-30 year old gas engines that survived that long just might keep on turning over, as long as ancillary equipment is replaced to handle cooling, fuel, spark, etc. While batteries can degrade over time with or without use, and likely more so without use. Electric motors don't even tend to be discussed because they are simply assumed to be very reliable for a very long time. (At least, that's what I assume.)

But certainly, we don't have enough data save for the few EVs that existed 10+ years ago.

https://www.lifewire.com/do-evs-last-as-long-as-gasoline-cars-5202392

Given technological advances in both conventional and electric vehicles in the last decade, neither seems to have longevity issues. With responsible driving and maintenance habits, both should last at least a decade, if not much longer. 

To help encourage confidence in EVs, federal rules now require automakers to cover major components, like the battery and electric motor, for eight years or 100,000 miles, while California extends that to 10 years or 150,000 miles. Some EV automakers even offer a lifetime guarantee, something practically unheard of in conventional vehicle warranties.

Or, I guess we could just go with our gut feelings and guess if they'll be reliable?

[theoverlook]

There's a lot of survivorship bias going into that 'average age' chart.  <snip> I have 2 cars one is over 20 years old and the other over 30 years old, both on original drivetrains.

That is pretty much the definition of survivorship bias.

I don't know about cutting edge brand new cars, but cars that are 10-20 years old now are AMAZING compared to 10-20 year old cars when I was younger. I drive a 10 year old minivan from a supposedly disposable brand (Dodge) and it's going great at 100k+ miles compared to anything from the 70s, 80s, or 90s. Same with my 12 year old plugin hybrid Chevy. I get it, I have a 1970 F250 and a 2001 MR2 Spyder and I love those cars. But both of them are on their second engine. The F250 from "well it's a 70s iron block v8 it wore out" and the MR2 from "Toyota thought it smart to put a catalytic converter inches from an engine that likes to burn oil."

Asking dealership mechanics will reveal which cars come in for service, because imagine this, mechanics only see the cars with problems. In 2024 there were about 16 million new cars sold in the US. Do you really think they are all disposable junk? I highly doubt it. I think that we'll continue to see a few conk out early, a few last about ten years, and plenty last 20+. I'd put some money on the "average viable age of car will continue to creep up" side of the equation.

I think it's like music: the cars that were good when you were in the prime age to enjoy cars will always seem best. But don't be a dink and generalize that to "modern cars are crap." It's not true in music, and it's not true in cars.

[ChpBstrd]

There's a lot of survivorship bias going into that 'average age' chart.  Most mechanics will tell you about how bad new cars are getting, I guess the only saving grace is that warranty periods are generally getting longer.  2015 onwards is getting grim.  Kia/Hyundai have become true disposable cars with unrebuildable engines that are lucky to last the warranty period before expiring.  Most cars these days have Direct injection, low tension piston rings, long oil-change intervals, oil spec as thin as water, 10 year coolant life, transmissions with 'lifetime fluid', CVT transmissions, large cars moving to smaller and smaller turbo engines, all these things designed to pretend the car has lower emissions and running costs come at a price.  If your engine lasts 8 years instead of 20+, was it really economical?  I have 2 cars one is over 20 years old and the other over 30 years old, both on original drivetrains.  I just can't see that being the case for many new cars sold today.

Oh and EVs.  Expected to last 150,000 miles or longer?  Lets see how that works out.  Most EV buyers seem to be swapping cars every couple of years and they are copping brutal depreciation for the privilege.  There must be some reason the used car market doesn't value used EVs as a viable long-term vehicle.

Agree 100% with your list of the ways car manufacturers are making things cheaper or adding horsepower at the expense of durability. Turbocharged grocery-getters... WTF? A followup question: What's the effect on the environment when cars last <10 years?

IMO, the ultimate "good investment" vehicles right now might be the Toyota Prius, Corolla Hybrid, or Camry Hybrid. With any of these, you trade the horrible CVT belt drive for a gearbox matched to motor-generators design that has lasted 300k miles or 20 years in earlier generations. And the motor-generator approach is less mechanically complex and prone to failure than any automatic transmission, and arguably some manuals. Durability is a matter of money, but so is fuel economy, and by driving any one of these vehicles you're exposed to only some of the fuel costs experienced by non-hybrid owners. They are not as cheap as their Korean competitors but you make your money back in the long run. I'm not as familiar with Honda's hybrid offerings, but understand their design involves a bit more complexity. Nissan has all but destroyed itself by failing to fix CVT problems over the years, but they probably still make decent trucks, judging by the ones with 200k miles on FB Marketplace.

[41_swish]

I just blew up the CVT on my 9-year-old car. Man, oh man did that suck. I was not planning for it at all. I had to finance a Toyota Camry. It's a fine car and I will drive it for 15 years, but if I had more money and wasn't trying to fire, I would have picked something different.

[Juan Ponce de León]

I don't know about cutting edge brand new cars, but cars that are 10-20 years old now are AMAZING compared to 10-20 year old cars when I was younger.

I completely agree with this, cars just got better and better.  But my point is around 2015 onwards that has changed.  Manufacturers have realised they were over-engineering and building cars not just for the original buyer and 2nd owner but they were in some models building cars that could be bought 2 decades later for next to nothing and continue to driven reliably just with basic maintenance.  They've now moved to a different philosophy that values efficiency of gas mileage and running costs over the warranty period over long term reliability.  It's not just cars that are getting worse, it's everything.  Pairs of jeans, washing machines.  Nothing is built to last these days, enshitification is a real thing.

The other thing I forgot to mention about new vehicles is the amount of technology in them which is driving up costs for everyone.  Headlights assembly in newer cars can cost up to $2000 each these days, even plastic bumpers are full of tech like cameras and radars and other sensors.  Then there's all the new tech that goes into the drivetrains as well.  These cars as they age are far more easily reaching a point where they are uneconomical to repair, which also will drive up insurance costs for everyone.  EVs are a prime example for this, minor fender benders leave repairers wondering about the integrity of the battery which takes up the entire floor of the vehicle, these cars are then written off as a precaution.  The cost of a battery replacement is more than the value of the car itself.  The battery was probably fine, but the insurance company can't take the risk as damaged batteries are much more likely to explode and kill the occupants leaving the insurance company liable as they were meant to have fixed the car.

[ChpBstrd]

I don't know about cutting edge brand new cars, but cars that are 10-20 years old now are AMAZING compared to 10-20 year old cars when I was younger.

I completely agree with this, cars just got better and better.  But my point is around 2015 onwards that has changed.  Manufacturers have realised they were over-engineering and building cars not just for the original buyer and 2nd owner but they were in some models building cars that could be bought 2 decades later for next to nothing and continue to driven reliably just with basic maintenance.  They've now moved to a different philosophy that values efficiency of gas mileage and running costs over the warranty period over long term reliability.  It's not just cars that are getting worse, it's everything.  Pairs of jeans, washing machines.  Nothing is built to last these days, enshitification is a real thing.

The other thing I forgot to mention about new vehicles is the amount of technology in them which is driving up costs for everyone.  Headlights assembly in newer cars can cost up to $2000 each these days, even plastic bumpers are full of tech like cameras and radars and other sensors.  Then there's all the new tech that goes into the drivetrains as well.  These cars as they age are far more easily reaching a point where they are uneconomical to repair, which also will drive up insurance costs for everyone.  EVs are a prime example for this, minor fender benders leave repairers wondering about the integrity of the battery which takes up the entire floor of the vehicle, these cars are then written off as a precaution.  The cost of a battery replacement is more than the value of the car itself.  The battery was probably fine, but the insurance company can't take the risk as damaged batteries are much more likely to explode and kill the occupants leaving the insurance company liable as they were meant to have fixed the car.

2015 onward, plus or minus a couple of years, is also roughly the timeframe when Tesla rose to prominence. The Model 3 arrived into a world where the legacy manufacturers had made it impossible to buy an inexpensive car without a ton of electronics/infotainment, features, a dozen airbags, an internet connection, and extreme mechanical complexity. Some of these underwhelming cars, like the Dodge Dart or Ford Focus, were loss leaders that only existed to meet fuel economy rules so that more SUVS and trucks could be sold, and this mentality showed through their massive quality problems.

The Model 3's relatively high price seemed reasonable compared to the alternatives, because the alternatives were so expensive and many were already experiencing major drivetrain failures within the first five years of ownership. There was talk about how electric drivetrains would be bulletproof, and never require maintenance again!

Alas, it was not to be. Tesla's parts distribution support for the Model 3 made its cost of repair roughly comparable to a European exotic. Its low-profile, high performance, heavy load tires ground away at a fast pace and cost thousands to replace. Insurance costs went through the roof. Reliability suffered as the cars were often bricked due to software glitches. Maybe these were growing pains, but Tesla's poor parts distribution was an own-goal, because these high-performance cars were getting wrecked so often. They could have made a mint selling fenders and bumper skins, while controlling the cost of ownership. Instead they created a generation of "never again" previous owners who felt extorted.

There's still probably a market for anyone who can make an affordable electric car. Tesla just didn't hit the mark - or hasn't yet. Meanwhile there are 2 factors potentially worsening the situation: (1) a glut of used Model 3's from former car rental fleets, plus a glut of low mileage 2017-2022 Chevy Bolts that were bought back, had a battery replacement, and are now being resold, and (2) the likely rollback of fuel economy standards, which will discourage future small vehicle production.

[maizefolk]

So if the average age of cars on the street is 12 years old... for every car you see that's newer than 2013, there's a corresponding one out there that's just as much older! (That's median talk, not mean, but it's not a bad approximation. And it could just be one car that's a billion years old throwing off the average! Or a bunch of classics that are counted, but just sit in a garage somewhere!)

I feel like I see a fair number of cars that look like they're from the late 90s on the road still, which would be 25+ years old.

But yes, I suspect you're right that the average is thrown off from the median a bit by classic cars (there are enthusiasts who drive model A's on the road around here, are those factored into the average?) and people who have an old junker at home as a backup car (so you don't normally see it on the road, but still registered and reflected in the statistics)

[MinorMiner]

Just had my 2018 Model 3 drive itself out of my garage to the hardware store then to the grocery store then back home. All on its own. No interventions. With late 2024 vintage software.

My dad just had his 2024 Model Y drive from Ann Arbor, Michigan to Biloxi, MS to Hotsprings, AR back to Ann Arbor. All on its own. No interventions. With late 2024 vintage software.

The advent of real world AI is the biggest deal in industrial technology since the steam engine. Just like muscle power was replaced by mechanics, intellectual labor is being replaced by computers.

Tesla is at the forefront of this trend. Keep this in mind if you are short. You might get your face ripped off.

[dividendman]

Just had my 2018 Model 3 drive itself out of my garage to the hardware store then to the grocery store then back home. All on its own. No interventions. With late 2024 vintage software.

My dad just had his 2024 Model Y drive from Ann Arbor, Michigan to Biloxi, MS to Hotsprings, AR back to Ann Arbor. All on its own. No interventions. With late 2024 vintage software.

The advent of real world AI is the biggest deal in industrial technology since the steam engine. Just like muscle power was replaced by mechanics, intellectual labor is being replaced by computers.

Tesla is at the forefront of this trend. Keep this in mind if you are short. You might get your face ripped off.

Just make sure you're still paying attention or you'll end up dead like a bunch of people who relied on the driver assist feature.

[bacchi]

Just had my 2018 Model 3 drive itself out of my garage to the hardware store then to the grocery store then back home. All on its own. No interventions. With late 2024 vintage software.

My dad just had his 2024 Model Y drive from Ann Arbor, Michigan to Biloxi, MS to Hotsprings, AR back to Ann Arbor. All on its own. No interventions. With late 2024 vintage software.

The advent of real world AI is the biggest deal in industrial technology since the steam engine. Just like muscle power was replaced by mechanics, intellectual labor is being replaced by computers.

Tesla is at the forefront of this trend. Keep this in mind if you are short. You might get your face ripped off.

Anecdotally, a friend uses FSD to drive to work every weekday and, every day, he has to take control at a certain left turn because the car still can't figure it out. If he didn't take control, he'd be in a head on collision at speed. That's an intervention every ~20 miles.

Speaking more broadly, when Tesla puts their insurance money on the line with robotaxis, then we're talking. For the record, I mean real robotaxi driving without a driver. Though the White House might indemnify Tesla...

[FINate]

It was announced yesterday that Waymo has entered into an agreement with Toyota to provide self driving functionality for personal vehicles. In other words, the most advanced self driving company has partnered with the largest automaker. I wouldn't be surprised if this expands to other automakers in the future.

Waymo is currently doing around 250,000 rides per week in 4 cities, with near term plans to expand to two more. This is without safety drivers. The Tesla robotaxi is slated to be in Austin only with an initial fleet of 10-20 vehicles, with operations geofenced and with teleoperators, so basically where Waymo was a number of years ago. Elon has repeatedly criticized Waymo's approach, so it's interesting to see him tacitly admitting that Waymo had it right.

I fully expect TSLA fanatics will pump this meme stock for all it's worth if/when robotaxi actually happens, but this isn't going to be the money printing monopoly many expect. Waymo has deep pockets and will continue to apply competitive pressure, and Uber/Lyft will further limit the upside profit potential of self driving ride service.

[dividendman]

Just had my 2018 Model 3 drive itself out of my garage to the hardware store then to the grocery store then back home. All on its own. No interventions. With late 2024 vintage software.

My dad just had his 2024 Model Y drive from Ann Arbor, Michigan to Biloxi, MS to Hotsprings, AR back to Ann Arbor. All on its own. No interventions. With late 2024 vintage software.

The advent of real world AI is the biggest deal in industrial technology since the steam engine. Just like muscle power was replaced by mechanics, intellectual labor is being replaced by computers.

Tesla is at the forefront of this trend. Keep this in mind if you are short. You might get your face ripped off.

Anecdotally, a friend uses FSD to drive to work every weekday and, every day, he has to take control at a certain left turn because the car still can't figure it out. If he didn't take control, he'd be in a head on collision at speed. That's an intervention every ~20 miles.

Speaking more broadly, when Tesla puts their insurance money on the line with robotaxis, then we're talking. For the record, I mean real robotaxi driving without a driver. Though the White House might indemnify Tesla...

I was walking around San Fransico the other day and driverless Waymo taxis were everywhere! It's funny to see two empty front seats. People were taking rides, it was kinda crazy. I don't think Tesla is close to that.

[Telecaster]

Waymo is currently doing around 250,000 rides per week in 4 cities, with near term plans to expand to two more. This is without safety drivers. The Tesla robotaxi is slated to be in Austin only with an initial fleet of 10-20 vehicles, with operations geofenced and with teleoperators, so basically where Waymo was a number of years ago. Elon has repeatedly criticized Waymo's approach, so it's interesting to see him tacitly admitting that Waymo had it right.

I fully expect TSLA fanatics will pump this meme stock for all it's worth if/when robotaxi actually happens, but this isn't going to be the money printing monopoly many expect. Waymo has deep pockets and will continue to apply competitive pressure, and Uber/Lyft will further limit the upside profit potential of self driving ride service.

Tesla recently released a promo video on Twitter (looked but can't find it now, sorry) showing a robotaxi picking up and dropping off Tesla employees in Austin.   There was a safety driver in the car. This suggests to me that as of right now, Tesla doesn't believe their robotaxi is good enough for remote operation.

Tesla's goal of no geofencing is the correct target, but it is too ambitious for current tech.    Waymo was doing geofenced, remotely monitored, cab services four years ago.   

[Telecaster]

I just don't see the vision with Tesla. Elon is irradict and the legacy auto makers are making up a lot of ground. 5 years ago, I would have bought a Tesla, but now Ford, Chevy, and Kia all have good options.

On the first page of this thread back in 2018, I said that Tesla had no moat.   Today, I would rate that statement as basically wrong.    My thinking was that Tesla had only just then posted its first profitable quarter (after however many years of losses), and once Tesla took the risk of proving there was a market, legacy manufacturers could jump in and produce their own EVs.

Again, that was basically wrong.   Or at best, too early which is the same as being wrong.    Tesla was able to produce EVs at high volumes at extremely high margins and nobody else could come close.   Unfortunately for Tesla, they shot themselves in the foot.   As you point out, there are now some good alternatives with more in the pipeline.   

Tesla did not release a low cost mass market model--which was their stated business plan the whole time.   Cybertruck was a flop because of the absurdly high price point.   Tesla has not really refreshed their legacy models.   The bet seems to be all in on the Cybercab, BUT that means they'll need to crack autonomous driving within the next couple years and that seems very unlikely.   Even if they do crack it first, several other companies are hot on their heels with their own AV technology, and it is unlikely Tesla's advantage (if it gets one) will be durable. 

[dividendman]

I just don't see the vision with Tesla. Elon is irradict and the legacy auto makers are making up a lot of ground. 5 years ago, I would have bought a Tesla, but now Ford, Chevy, and Kia all have good options.

On the first page of this thread back in 2018, I said that Tesla had no moat.   Today, I would rate that statement as basically wrong.    My thinking was that Tesla had only just then posted its first profitable quarter (after however many years of losses), and once Tesla took the risk of proving there was a market, legacy manufacturers could jump in and produce their own EVs.

Again, that was basically wrong.   Or at best, too early which is the same as being wrong.    Tesla was able to produce EVs at high volumes at extremely high margins and nobody else could come close.   Unfortunately for Tesla, they shot themselves in the foot.   As you point out, there are now some good alternatives with more in the pipeline.   

Tesla did not release a low cost mass market model--which was their stated business plan the whole time.   Cybertruck was a flop because of the absurdly high price point.   Tesla has not really refreshed their legacy models.   The bet seems to be all in on the Cybercab, BUT that means they'll need to crack autonomous driving within the next couple years and that seems very unlikely.   Even if they do crack it first, several other companies are hot on their heels with their own AV technology, and it is unlikely Tesla's advantage (if it gets one) will be durable.

Not to mention that cities, which are usually very liberal democratic places, will, I'm sure, put up barriers to Tesla getting autonomous cab contracts/permits over their rivals.

[FINate]

I just don't see the vision with Tesla. Elon is irradict and the legacy auto makers are making up a lot of ground. 5 years ago, I would have bought a Tesla, but now Ford, Chevy, and Kia all have good options.

On the first page of this thread back in 2018, I said that Tesla had no moat.   Today, I would rate that statement as basically wrong.    My thinking was that Tesla had only just then posted its first profitable quarter (after however many years of losses), and once Tesla took the risk of proving there was a market, legacy manufacturers could jump in and produce their own EVs.

Again, that was basically wrong.   Or at best, too early which is the same as being wrong.    Tesla was able to produce EVs at high volumes at extremely high margins and nobody else could come close.   Unfortunately for Tesla, they shot themselves in the foot.   As you point out, there are now some good alternatives with more in the pipeline.   

Tesla did not release a low cost mass market model--which was their stated business plan the whole time.   Cybertruck was a flop because of the absurdly high price point.   Tesla has not really refreshed their legacy models.   The bet seems to be all in on the Cybercab, BUT that means they'll need to crack autonomous driving within the next couple years and that seems very unlikely.   Even if they do crack it first, several other companies are hot on their heels with their own AV technology, and it is unlikely Tesla's advantage (if it gets one) will be durable.

But you weren't wrong. Two years after your post, in 2020, there were a number of EVs from legacy makers that were competitive with Tesla. The competition has continued to intensify in many cases Tesla is no longer best in class.

It's interesting to go back and read this thread and see the various theories put forth to justify TSLA'a multiples. In car tech, OTA updates, charging, gigacasting, etc. In each case it was claimed "legacy" automakers could never catch up, that Tesla had such a large lead that it would continue to capture more and more market share. But that's not what happened. Instead, what basic economics predicted is what happened. The other automakers caught up, and the auto market is as it has always been--a capital intensive low margin cut-throat competition for consumers.

This is why Tesla "pivoted" away from a low cost mass consumer vehicle. There's basically no way they can pump the stock on large numbers of low margin vehicles, especially with every other manufacturer entering this space. Hence the weirdness and high cost of the Cybrtruck, and Musk's desperate attempts to reframe Tesla as an AI and robotics story.

There really was no moat.

[reeshau]

Elon has repeatedly criticized Waymo's approach, so it's interesting to see him tacitly admitting that Waymo had it right.

This is true about their camera-only approach, too. Until Luminar began lidar production with Volvo, Tesla was their biggest customer. They use Luminar lidars for ground truth to train their vision systems on.  Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

[ChpBstrd]

Elon has repeatedly criticized Waymo's approach, so it's interesting to see him tacitly admitting that Waymo had it right.

This is true about their camera-only approach, too. Until Luminar began lidar production with Volvo, Tesla was their biggest customer. They use Luminar lidars for ground truth to train their vision systems on.  Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

IF Elon Musk can eat crow and adopt lidar + visual, then Tesla could potentially retake the lead with a little help from government favoritism, develop economies of scale, and.... sell their tech as a standard feature for no additional cost like BYD is doing? That's quite the justification for a three-digit PE ratio, for a company with falling sales.

As noted by @FINate each successive moat idea has proven illusory. It's fascinating to hear the same fans who predicted their 2017 Model 3's would by now be earning them money as a robotaxi have shifted their excitement to how Tesla will earn all that money with a robotaxi. How many disappointments can a person take?

[41_swish]

Tesla just feels like it has to have some back to earth moment. They make fine cars and all, but if Ford or GM had these financials people would be losing it.

[dividendman]

Teslas board has started a CEO search to replace Musk... Musk is largely why I hold short positions but I think it still has a ways to fall...

[roomtempmayo]

Teslas board has started a CEO search to replace Musk... Musk is largely why I hold short positions but I think it still has a ways to fall...

Doesn't the board have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders?  Pretty tough to pretend that what's happening right now with the current CEO serves shareholder interests.

[roomtempmayo]

How many disappointments can a person take?

I am continually surprised by people's excitement for the future.

I struggle to name good changes post-Windows 97, much less bite on the idea that society is better off.

And yet, a whole lot of folks seem to think that something amazing is just over the horizon.

[reeshau]

Teslas board has started a CEO search to replace succeed Musk... Musk is largely why I hold short positions but I think it still has a ways to fall...

FIFY

While the board did begin the search, the also told him he needed to spend more time at the company.  There isn't even an unreliable Tesla statement on timing.  I haven't seen anything saying Musk is out, now or at a definite time.  They could install this person as a COO or President or something, and he could still be around a long time.

[41_swish]

Maybe the hedge funds and big banks just know something that I don't. I really don't get how they can have an increase in share price on the promise of self-driving taxis

[FireLane]

Teslas board has started a CEO search to replace succeed Musk... Musk is largely why I hold short positions but I think it still has a ways to fall...

FIFY

While the board did begin the search, the also told him he needed to spend more time at the company.  There isn't even an unreliable Tesla statement on timing.  I haven't seen anything saying Musk is out, now or at a definite time.  They could install this person as a COO or President or something, and he could still be around a long time.

They should name someone who's actually competent and engaged to run the company, and give Musk an honorary title like Chief Meme Officer, so he can get paid to spend his time shitposting on the husk of Twitter.

It wouldn't be different from the situation now. Just more honest.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

From what I heard in the Financial News, Elon Musk will be Chairman of the Board while someone else becomes CEO.  Musk has apparently acknowledged the need for that change.  But the analyst also pointed out the big problem isn't Elon Musk at DOGE, but Elon Musk tweeting.  That damage is unlikely to go away just because Elon Musk assumes a new role at Tesla.

Back when Tesla was the only EV maker, extremely high valuations reflected exponential growth of Tesla as it filled a worldwide need for EVs.  But at present, with plenty of competition, a 155 P/E ratio seems less justified.
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnas/tsla/valuation

Tesla could still be the first manufacturer of AI robots, and revive its prospects by being first to that market.  I don't know their competition in that space.

For self-driving taxis, Tesla is behind rivals like Waymo.  Trump's rule changes to allow Tesla to drive more freely with its "FSV" may help it get miles and experience, but it also risks other safety issues.

[ColoradoTribe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59MoRFtZYk4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mxT_4ONcls&t=310s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNJqWP0ev1Y&t=2355s

[ColoradoTribe]

From what I heard in the Financial News, Elon Musk will be Chairman of the Board while someone else becomes CEO.  Musk has apparently acknowledged the need for that change.  But the analyst also pointed out the big problem isn't Elon Musk at DOGE, but Elon Musk tweeting.  That damage is unlikely to go away just because Elon Musk assumes a new role at Tesla.

Back when Tesla was the only EV maker, extremely high valuations reflected exponential growth of Tesla as it filled a worldwide need for EVs.  But at present, with plenty of competition, a 155 P/E ratio seems less justified.
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnas/tsla/valuation

Tesla could still be the first manufacturer of AI robots, and revive its prospects by being first to that market.  I don't know their competition in that space.

For self-driving taxis, Tesla is behind rivals like Waymo.  Trump's rule changes to allow Tesla to drive more freely with its "FSV" may help it get miles and experience, but it also risks other safety issues.

Tesla is behind Waymo in terms of being first to offering (ie charging) driverless rides. (My Model Y essentially drives me around without intervention on FSD v 13 now). However, Waymo is way behind Tesla in the race to offering a scalable, profitable, and national driverless ride service. Waymo is operating in about a half dozen cities with around 2,000 vehicles that cost around $150k/each. That's after how many years for Waymo? In a year or two, Tesla will be operating a fleet of robotaxis that they mass produce in house for approximately $20k and at scale Tesla will produce more of them in a day than Waymo has on the road after five years. Tesla robotaxis will be able to operate anywhere because Tesla is offering a generalized solution that does not result on extensive road mapping inside geofenced areas. And no Tesla doesn't need Lidar any more than you or I need lidar to drive a car. Even the CEO of Google has stated Tesla is ahead in the FSD race.

Tesla is also in pole position in the race for humanoid robots. I am unaware of any other company that combines the AI, compute, manufacturing, and robotics expertise that Tesla has. Tesla is also building out the supply chain to mass produce robots profitably. You need all the pieces. Building expensive prototypes is not a business. Tesla will have a couple thousand Optimus robots working on Tesla lines this year doing simple, but meaningful tasks. Scaling will be exponential from there. This market is massive and could support 3-4 main players. My confidence is near 100% that Tesla will be one of the winers in this space.

Tesla is constructing their 3rd megpacktory in Austin (after Nevada and Shanghai). Energy is growing in terms of revenue and margins. And the Tesla magapacks paired with Tesla management software like autobiddexr is best in class. Energy revenue will be equal to auto revenue in coming years. Can Ford do that?

Tesla is not a car company any more than Amazon is an online book retailer.

Here are the irons that Tesla has in the fire. Most, though not all, will be successful. In order of revenue potential (core competences).

1) Humanoid robots (AI, manufacturing, robotics)
2) FSD/Robotaxi/Rideshare Service (AI, manufacturing, software)
3) FSD Licensing (Ai, software)
4) Energy Products (software, manufacturing)
5) Automotive/Semi (manufacturing, software, AI)
6) Battery Cells/Lithium Refining (manufacturing)
7) Supercharger Revenue (manufacturing, software)
8) ZEV credits
9) Solar Install/Home Battery
10) Auto Servicing
11) Insurance
12) Infotainment


People trying to compare Tesla's PE to Ford and GM, etc. is just insane. How many of the above products or services does Ford offer or is Ford even working on? Two?

Tesla will role out cheaper models and/or variants in June and auto sales will grow modestly either this year or next. But maxing out car sales is no longer Tesla's focus or goal.  Automotive and energy profits are how they fuel the expansion into AI and robotics and the next 10X increase in the stock price and revenue.

[ChpBstrd]

Tesla could still be the first manufacturer of AI robots, and revive its prospects by being first to that market.  I don't know their competition in that space.

It's been 13 years since Honda unveiled its Asimo humanoid robot, and about the same since we were sharing videos of a wide variety of Boston Dynamics robots dancing and independently dealing with obstacles. It's a good question to ask what happened to these products, and whether Tesla is trying to build a better Segway. Boston Dynamics is deploying its Atlas robots in a Hyundai factory this year, but it seems to be a parallel situation with the technical difficulties of FSD. In any case, all we know about Optimus is that it's aremote controlled toy, operated by a human. Whatever the intellectual capabilities of Asimo or Atlas, they are far beyond that.

For self-driving taxis, Tesla is behind rivals like Waymo.  Trump's rule changes to allow Tesla to drive more freely with its "FSV" may help it get miles and experience, but it also risks other safety issues.

To apply a lesson learned from Tesla's ultimately successful struggle to build a profitable electric car, we can assume the people actually building a business and collecting revenue doing the thing are technically years ahead of those who are talking about doing the thing. With electric cars a decade ago, it was Tesla doing the thing and the other automakers talking about it. With robotaxis, it is Waymo doing the thing and Tesla talking about it.

That said, Tesla has seemingly bottomless pockets to finance the development of new products. Success in technological breakthroughs that require billions of dollars in R&D spending seems to be contingent on being well-connected to venture capital sources and to be able to arrange government subsidies. Tesla's success so far can be seen as a factor of access to funding, rather than anybody's genius.

I don't discount that Tesla could take the technical lead in any industry in which they are currently behind. As long as investors keep lining up, they could simply out-fundraise competitors and outlast them in a decade-long marathon. Whether all that dilution ends up making profits for investors, or produces the next Segway, is hard to discern. Tesla is not doing it yet, but neither was the US when Sputnik was flying above everyone's heads. The country with the most money to burn got to the moon first.

[dragoncar]

Can’t Tesla just buy almost anyone doing the thing?

[41_swish]

@ColoradoTribe Are you saying that comparing Tesla's P.E. to the legacy auto-makers P.E. is not apples to apples, because Tesla is involved in much more than just making cars? I do see what you are saying if that is the case

[Telecaster]

However, Waymo is way behind Tesla in the race to offering a scalable, profitable, and national driverless ride service. Waymo is operating in about a half dozen cities with around 2,000 vehicles that cost around $150k/each. That's after how many years for Waymo? In a year or two, Tesla will be operating a fleet of robotaxis that they mass produce in house for approximately $20k and at scale Tesla will produce more of them in a day than Waymo has on the road after five years.

This according to Tesla.  You might recall that not that long ago Tesla's announced goal was to sell 20 million vehicles/year by 2030.*   They were also going to deliver level 4 or 5 autonomy "next year" for I don't even know how many years now.  Back in 2019 Tesla said said a base Cybertruck would be available in 2021 for $40,000.  The Tesla Semi was supposed to start production in 2019, but has been re-scheduled for Real Soon™   

A reasonable person could conclude that Tesla's business predictions are consistently over optimistic and it would be prudent to temper expectations.   

FWIW, Tesla has not yet applied for autonomous ride-hailing service permits in any state.   We know in Waymo's case that takes a couple years even using demonstrated technology.   So it will probably take Tesla a similar amount of time once they begin the application process.   However, Tesla has not yet demonstrated autonomous technology good enough that it won't require a safety driver.   So the notion there will be thousands of things thing operating on the streets in one to two years, sounds very, very implausible.   

Texas is a special case that does not require an additional permit for autonomous vehicles, only that vehicles comply with all traffic and safety rules.   Presumably, that will speed things up, but Tesla is launching its service with a Model Y, not cybercab, with either a safety driver in the vehicle or a remote safety driver, which provides no technical advantage over Waymo.   

Even the CEO of Google has stated Tesla is ahead in the FSD race.

No, he said Tesla was "a leader."  He didn't say Tesla was the leader, and he most definitely did not say Tesla is ahead.

But maxing out car sales is no longer Tesla's focus or goal. 

Which raises the question, why not?  A constant bull case theme throughout this thread is that Telsa has such a large lead on moribund legacy manufacturers that they won't ever be able to catch up, and as EV adoption increases (ultimately replacing ICE vehicles),  the total global car market will be dominated by Tesla.   Hence justifying its eye-popping stock price.   

Now the narrative is that the global car market is too trivial for Tesla to really much bother with.  it is the other stuff that will be the money maker.    A bit of a contrast from thoughts expressed earlier in this thread:

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.

*You could correctly point out that it is not yet 2030, so this is still theoretically achievable.  However, Tesla delivered about 1.8 million vehicles last year, a slight decline over the year before. It is easy to see why this is not plausible.  And it wasn't plausible when the goal was announced either. 

[GuitarStv]

Texas is a special case that does not require an additional permit for autonomous vehicles, only that vehicles comply with all traffic and safety rules.

What is the penalty when the vehicles don't, and who pays it?

[ColoradoTribe]

However, Waymo is way behind Tesla in the race to offering a scalable, profitable, and national driverless ride service. Waymo is operating in about a half dozen cities with around 2,000 vehicles that cost around $150k/each. That's after how many years for Waymo? In a year or two, Tesla will be operating a fleet of robotaxis that they mass produce in house for approximately $20k and at scale Tesla will produce more of them in a day than Waymo has on the road after five years.

This according to Tesla.  You might recall that not that long ago Tesla's announced goal was to sell 20 million vehicles/year by 2030.*   They were also going to deliver level 4 or 5 autonomy "next year" for I don't even know how many years now.  Back in 2019 Tesla said said a base Cybertruck would be available in 2021 for $40,000.  The Tesla Semi was supposed to start production in 2019, but has been re-scheduled for Real Soon™   

A reasonable person could conclude that Tesla's business predictions are consistently over optimistic and it would be prudent to temper expectations.   

FWIW, Tesla has not yet applied for autonomous ride-hailing service permits in any state.   We know in Waymo's case that takes a couple years even using demonstrated technology.   So it will probably take Tesla a similar amount of time once they begin the application process.   However, Tesla has not yet demonstrated autonomous technology good enough that it won't require a safety driver.   So the notion there will be thousands of things thing operating on the streets in one to two years, sounds very, very implausible.   

Texas is a special case that does not require an additional permit for autonomous vehicles, only that vehicles comply with all traffic and safety rules.   Presumably, that will speed things up, but Tesla is launching its service with a Model Y, not cybercab, with either a safety driver in the vehicle or a remote safety driver, which provides no technical advantage over Waymo.   

Even the CEO of Google has stated Tesla is ahead in the FSD race.

No, he said Tesla was "a leader."  He didn't say Tesla was the leader, and he most definitely did not say Tesla is ahead.

But maxing out car sales is no longer Tesla's focus or goal. 

Which raises the question, why not?  A constant bull case theme throughout this thread is that Telsa has such a large lead on moribund legacy manufacturers that they won't ever be able to catch up, and as EV adoption increases (ultimately replacing ICE vehicles),  the total global car market will be dominated by Tesla.   Hence justifying its eye-popping stock price.   

Now the narrative is that the global car market is too trivial for Tesla to really much bother with.  it is the other stuff that will be the money maker.    A bit of a contrast from thoughts expressed earlier in this thread:

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.

*You could correctly point out that it is not yet 2030, so this is still theoretically achievable.  However, Tesla delivered about 1.8 million vehicles last year, a slight decline over the year before. It is easy to see why this is not plausible.  And it wasn't plausible when the goal was announced either.

Have you taking a ride in a car operating v13 of Tesla's FSD? I have and therefore I am not taking Tesla's word for anything. I also have seen the drone flyover footage of the Cybercab
gigapress castings piling up outside the Austin factory. I also have a very detailed post upthread explaining how Tesla easily goes from COGS of around $35k for a Model Y to a cost of $20k to build a Cybercab.

One can make a compelling list of things Tesla said they would do and to date have not accomplished. I can make an equally or more compelling list of things Tesla has said they'd do and went on to accomplish. Feel free to bet against Tesla delivering on its promises. But, here's the thing for me, if they only accomplish half of their goals and if half of those are late arriving, Tesla will still be wildly profitable and successful. I don't really care if I wait 1 year or 5 years for the next 10X jump. I have done it before while everyone was pointing out how slow the Model 3 ramp was and how Tesla would never be profitable and the competition would crush Tesla, but the panel gaps, etc.

If Elon was focused on Tesla being just a car company, Tesla would be on the way to selling 20 million cars to retail buyers a year and cranking out new, cheaper models faster than the current pace. That is no longer Tesla's focus because Telsa is not just a car company. As an investor, I'm okay with that. I'm okay with Tesla using energy and automotive revenue to reinvest in the next wave of growth centered around software, AI, manufacturing, and robotics.

CEO of Google absolutely said Tesla was ahead of Waymo. Go watch the video. Or find it where I posted it up thread.

Here's a great video with Ford CEO Jim Farley, explaining why legacy auto can't compete with Tesla (spoiler, they don't have the software expertise vertically integrated like Tesla). Ford just gave up on even trying to do the software "brain" for their new EV platform in house.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnujMDjGMAc&t=712s

[ColoradoTribe]

However, Waymo is way behind Tesla in the race to offering a scalable, profitable, and national driverless ride service. Waymo is operating in about a half dozen cities with around 2,000 vehicles that cost around $150k/each. That's after how many years for Waymo? In a year or two, Tesla will be operating a fleet of robotaxis that they mass produce in house for approximately $20k and at scale Tesla will produce more of them in a day than Waymo has on the road after five years.

This according to Tesla.  You might recall that not that long ago Tesla's announced goal was to sell 20 million vehicles/year by 2030.*   They were also going to deliver level 4 or 5 autonomy "next year" for I don't even know how many years now.  Back in 2019 Tesla said said a base Cybertruck would be available in 2021 for $40,000.  The Tesla Semi was supposed to start production in 2019, but has been re-scheduled for Real Soon™   

A reasonable person could conclude that Tesla's business predictions are consistently over optimistic and it would be prudent to temper expectations.   

FWIW, Tesla has not yet applied for autonomous ride-hailing service permits in any state.   We know in Waymo's case that takes a couple years even using demonstrated technology.   So it will probably take Tesla a similar amount of time once they begin the application process.   However, Tesla has not yet demonstrated autonomous technology good enough that it won't require a safety driver.   So the notion there will be thousands of things thing operating on the streets in one to two years, sounds very, very implausible.   

Texas is a special case that does not require an additional permit for autonomous vehicles, only that vehicles comply with all traffic and safety rules.   Presumably, that will speed things up, but Tesla is launching its service with a Model Y, not cybercab, with either a safety driver in the vehicle or a remote safety driver, which provides no technical advantage over Waymo.   

Even the CEO of Google has stated Tesla is ahead in the FSD race.

No, he said Tesla was "a leader."  He didn't say Tesla was the leader, and he most definitely did not say Tesla is ahead.

But maxing out car sales is no longer Tesla's focus or goal. 

Which raises the question, why not?  A constant bull case theme throughout this thread is that Telsa has such a large lead on moribund legacy manufacturers that they won't ever be able to catch up, and as EV adoption increases (ultimately replacing ICE vehicles),  the total global car market will be dominated by Tesla.   Hence justifying its eye-popping stock price.   

Now the narrative is that the global car market is too trivial for Tesla to really much bother with.  it is the other stuff that will be the money maker.    A bit of a contrast from thoughts expressed earlier in this thread:

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.

*You could correctly point out that it is not yet 2030, so this is still theoretically achievable.  However, Tesla delivered about 1.8 million vehicles last year, a slight decline over the year before. It is easy to see why this is not plausible.  And it wasn't plausible when the goal was announced either.

To your point about Tesla shifting focus and pivoting, I run into Amazon investors all the time that are super pissed that Amazon took their eye off the ball and got away from online book sales.

I considered ending my investment when Elon took his foot off the e-pedal and poured profits back into Optimus, FSD and robotaxi development. I even sold off a good chunk to lock in some profits. Then Tesla released v13 and the progress was clear and drastic. The question of if went away and it became only a question of when. I'm even more bullish on Optimus and humanoid autonomy because it is a much "easier" problem to solve than autonomous vehicles. A autonomous robot can operate in controlled indoor conditions doing a single repetitive task. Far easier than controlling for the speed and variables of operating a motor vehicle. Optimus>FSD>Car sales, that's why I still hold the majority of my position.

[ColoradoTribe]

"Tesla is the leader in this space"

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4m0lXtcvGE0

[reeshau]

Texas is a special case that does not require an additional permit for autonomous vehicles, only that vehicles comply with all traffic and safety rules.

What is the penalty when the vehicles don't, and who pays it?

In a very real way, this hasn't been legislated.  All the more so since traffic laws are state-by-state.

And then, it hasn't been litigated, either.  But I'm sure the ambulance chasers are drooling at the deep pockets of Google and Tesla.

[Telecaster]

One can make a compelling list of things Tesla said they would do and to date have not accomplished. I can make an equally or more compelling list of things Tesla has said they'd do and went on to accomplish. Feel free to bet against Tesla delivering on its promises. But, here's the thing for me, if they only accomplish half of their goals and if half of those are late arriving, Tesla will still be wildly profitable and successful. I don't really care if I wait 1 year or 5 years for the next 10X jump. I have done it before while everyone was pointing out how slow the Model 3 ramp was and how Tesla would never be profitable and the competition would crush Tesla, but the panel gaps, etc.

As per the title of this thread, we're talking about the investment case.  If, in 1999, you said that Cisco would be the company that provided the growth of the Internet, shared in that growth, and would be profitable and successful for the next two and half decades you would have been absolutely correct.  However, 1999 was also a terrible time to invest in Cisco.  Simply buying the index would have been vastly better--even thought it was and is a great company.  The market can be whacky in either direction for long periods of time, but ultimately it is a weighing machine.   If you overpay for future earnings you might be waiting decades for the payoff. 

For purposes of discussing the investment case, it is reasonable to examine claims of future products with how those results have been delivered in the past.    For example, if Tesla anticipates producing and operator/selling large volumes of cybercabs by next year as claimed, then it needs to be in the permitting process right now in a large number of locations.   But it isn't.    That doesn't mean Tesla will never produce/operate large volumes of cybercabs, just that it won't be doing it next year.   

CEO of Google absolutely said Tesla was ahead of Waymo. Go watch the video. Or find it where I posted it up thread.

Yes, I watched the full video when it came out.   In context, Pichai is talking about Waymo as a success for Google.   To my ear, he clearly says Tesla is "a leader" and that matches the video transcript.   As a sanity check, I Googled a few news articles, and they all said "a leader"    Regardless, this isn't a hill I want to die on.  Reasonable minds can disagree.   

https://youtu.be/OsxwBmp3iFU?si=RibfgLF4gU9UuxBS

Here's a great video with Ford CEO Jim Farley, explaining why legacy auto can't compete with Tesla (spoiler, they don't have the software expertise vertically integrated like Tesla). Ford just gave up on even trying to do the software "brain" for their new EV platform in house.

That doesn't sound like something a CEO would say.   I Googled the Phoebe Howard article screenshotted in the video, and sure enough the RealTesla video was...stretching things a bit.    Spoiler:  Farley didn't mention Tesla, he didn't say they can't compete, and he didn't say they giving up.   He did say they need to do business differently than they do now.  This will require different skill sets than they have now.  They are in process of obtaining those things, even though that process is disruptive. 

In a nutshell, Ford knows how to make ICE vehicles.  They don't know much about making EVs, so they have to acquire that ability.   That's just common sense, right?

There is a common narrative among Telsa bulls (and the RealTesla guy is definitely a bull) that Tesla is so far ahead in the EV field that legacy manufacturers will never catch up.   I have never believed this.   We're watching the legacy manufacturers begin to catch up right now.    Tesla still has by far the largest EV market share in the US.   But that lead has eroded a lot in the last two years as other manufacturers have begun to introduce EVs that consumers prefer over Tesla.   

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2022/03/22/ford-ceo-farley-talent-goals/9453474002/

[MinorMiner]

Relevant:

[neo von retorch]

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2025/05/tesla-sales-fall-by-62-in-the-uk-46-in-germany/

Since they'll be getting out of selling cars soon, this won't affect them as an investment, but... uh... doesn't look good for Tesla's automotive division in Europe.

Of those new cars, 45,535 were BEVs—a 53.5 percent increase year over year. In the context of those rising BEV sales, Tesla's 46 percent year on year decline should have alarm bells ringing.

[ColoradoTribe]

One can make a compelling list of things Tesla said they would do and to date have not accomplished. I can make an equally or more compelling list of things Tesla has said they'd do and went on to accomplish. Feel free to bet against Tesla delivering on its promises. But, here's the thing for me, if they only accomplish half of their goals and if half of those are late arriving, Tesla will still be wildly profitable and successful. I don't really care if I wait 1 year or 5 years for the next 10X jump. I have done it before while everyone was pointing out how slow the Model 3 ramp was and how Tesla would never be profitable and the competition would crush Tesla, but the panel gaps, etc.

As per the title of this thread, we're talking about the investment case.  If, in 1999, you said that Cisco would be the company that provided the growth of the Internet, shared in that growth, and would be profitable and successful for the next two and half decades you would have been absolutely correct.  However, 1999 was also a terrible time to invest in Cisco.  Simply buying the index would have been vastly better--even thought it was and is a great company.  The market can be whacky in either direction for long periods of time, but ultimately it is a weighing machine.   If you overpay for future earnings you might be waiting decades for the payoff. 

For purposes of discussing the investment case, it is reasonable to examine claims of future products with how those results have been delivered in the past.    For example, if Tesla anticipates producing and operator/selling large volumes of cybercabs by next year as claimed, then it needs to be in the permitting process right now in a large number of locations.   But it isn't.    That doesn't mean Tesla will never produce/operate large volumes of cybercabs, just that it won't be doing it next year.   

CEO of Google absolutely said Tesla was ahead of Waymo. Go watch the video. Or find it where I posted it up thread.

Yes, I watched the full video when it came out.   In context, Pichai is talking about Waymo as a success for Google.   To my ear, he clearly says Tesla is "a leader" and that matches the video transcript.   As a sanity check, I Googled a few news articles, and they all said "a leader"    Regardless, this isn't a hill I want to die on.  Reasonable minds can disagree.   

https://youtu.be/OsxwBmp3iFU?si=RibfgLF4gU9UuxBS

Here's a great video with Ford CEO Jim Farley, explaining why legacy auto can't compete with Tesla (spoiler, they don't have the software expertise vertically integrated like Tesla). Ford just gave up on even trying to do the software "brain" for their new EV platform in house.

That doesn't sound like something a CEO would say.   I Googled the Phoebe Howard article screenshotted in the video, and sure enough the RealTesla video was...stretching things a bit.    Spoiler:  Farley didn't mention Tesla, he didn't say they can't compete, and he didn't say they giving up.   He did say they need to do business differently than they do now.  This will require different skill sets than they have now.  They are in process of obtaining those things, even though that process is disruptive. 

In a nutshell, Ford knows how to make ICE vehicles.  They don't know much about making EVs, so they have to acquire that ability.   That's just common sense, right?

There is a common narrative among Telsa bulls (and the RealTesla guy is definitely a bull) that Tesla is so far ahead in the EV field that legacy manufacturers will never catch up.   I have never believed this.   We're watching the legacy manufacturers begin to catch up right now.    Tesla still has by far the largest EV market share in the US.   But that lead has eroded a lot in the last two years as other manufacturers have begun to introduce EVs that consumers prefer over Tesla.   

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2022/03/22/ford-ceo-farley-talent-goals/9453474002/

You called me out, saying the Google CEO didn't call Tesla "the" leader in autonomous. I produce the video, with captioning, where the Google CEO clearly states "Obviously, Tesla is THE leader..." and you come back with "reasonable minds can disagree". At least if you just admitted to getting that detail wrong I could respect you for being an honest actor.

As for the the Jim Farley clip from the Best In Tesla podcast. The current news being covered by the podcast was Ford's announcement that it was eliminating the division tasked with creating the centralized software brain for Ford's next generation of vehicles. The clip of Farley talking about the need for Ford to vertically integrate and bring software in house or face becoming irrelevant was from approximately 3 years ago. Basically, the whole point of the podcast is that after three years of trying to accomplish what Farley said was mission critical, Ford is giving up on the project. Farley is not going to mention Tesla by name, but it's clear who he sees as the competition when it comes to vertically integrated, software-defined vehicles. He's not going to mention Tesla by name because he is walking a fine line. He's trying to convince shareholders and possibly the Board of the need to make this huge investment that will take years to pay off, while at the same time not driving potential customers into the arms of a competitor. Just like with the Google CEO quote, you are twisting yourself into a pretzel to deny the obvious.

[Telecaster]

You called me out, saying the Google CEO didn't call Tesla "the" leader in autonomous. I produce the video, with captioning, where the Google CEO clearly states "Obviously, Tesla is THE leader..." and you come back with "reasonable minds can disagree". At least if you just admitted to getting that detail wrong I could respect you for being an honest actor.

Not to put too fine a point on it homeboy, but the interview was at the New York Times Deal Book Summit. 

The video linked to was from the official New York Times Youtube channel.  That transcript clearly says "a leader."   And that's how it was widely reported in the news media.

On the other hand, you have a Tik Toc video  from a Tesla Fanboi claiming something different.   

So who are you going to believe?   The people who actually conducted the interview, which was corroborated by journalists who were there, or your goofy Tik Fan Fanboi?     I take back what I said about reasonable people.   Your claims are pretty silly. 

In related news:  Upthread it was posited Tesla was a good investment in part because of its insurance business.     In reality,  Tesla is losing money in the insurance business, with a significantly worse loss ratio than the industry average.  I'm sure there's Tik Toc video explaining why this is good thing.   


https://insideevs.com/news/759156/tesla-insurance-loss-higher-average/

[ColoradoTribe]

You called me out, saying the Google CEO didn't call Tesla "the" leader in autonomous. I produce the video, with captioning, where the Google CEO clearly states "Obviously, Tesla is THE leader..." and you come back with "reasonable minds can disagree". At least if you just admitted to getting that detail wrong I could respect you for being an honest actor.

Not to put too fine a point on it homeboy, but the interview was at the New York Times Deal Book Summit. 

The video linked to was from the official New York Times Youtube channel.  That transcript clearly says "a leader."   And that's how it was widely reported in the news media.

On the other hand, you have a Tik Toc video  from a Tesla Fanboi claiming something different.   

So who are you going to believe?   The people who actually conducted the interview, which was corroborated by journalists who were there, or your goofy Tik Fan Fanboi?     I take back what I said about reasonable people.   Your claims are pretty silly. 

In related news:  Upthread it was posited Tesla was a good investment in part because of its insurance business.     In reality,  Tesla is losing money in the insurance business, with a significantly worse loss ratio than the industry average.  I'm sure there's Tik Toc video explaining why this is good thing.   


https://insideevs.com/news/759156/tesla-insurance-loss-higher-average/

Doesn't matter who posted the video of the interview. The video is of the exchange and the audio is clear. The man clearly says "Tesla is THE leader". The rest is just mental gymnastics on your part.

I never posted or stated that Tesla was a good investment because of insurance. I listed out the sectors in which Tesla was engaged to illuminate how Tesla was not a car company, but a technology, AI and manufacturing company.  I listed those sectors out in order of potential for revenue and profitability (my opinion). Never said insurance was profitable. In fact, I listed insurance 11 out of 12 sectors. Meaning I have low expectations for revenue and profitability for insurance and insurance is a non-factor to my investment thesis. Was this supposed to be some sort of gotcha moment?

[Telecaster]

Doesn't matter who posted the video of the interview. The video is of the exchange and the audio is clear. The man clearly says "Tesla is THE leader". The rest is just mental gymnastics on your part.

My point exactly.  You are saying the original video (and the transcript of that original video)  can't be trusted because you found an edited version on Tik Toc that you like better.

That's silly. 



 

[GuitarStv]

Doesn't matter who posted the video of the interview. The video is of the exchange and the audio is clear. The man clearly says "Tesla is THE leader". The rest is just mental gymnastics on your part.

My point exactly.  You are saying the original video (and the transcript of that original video)  can't be trusted because you found an edited version on Tik Toc that you like better.

That's silly. 

I have no real money in the pot on this argument . . . but I checked the video that @Telecaster originally posted, skimmed through the transcript, and found the part he was referring to.  You can jump directly to the point where the statement ". . . Tesla is a leader in the space . . ." right here - https://youtu.be/OsxwBmp3iFU?si=Jx1A5__UvIqGpvIz&t=1012.  There is no 'the' said in the video.  I listened to the video multiple times

So then I was confused and watched the clip that @ColoradoTribe posted (relevant portion happens at 46 seconds in - https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4m0lXtcvGE0).  If you close your eyes as you listen, the clip clearly uses the same audio and says 'a leader'.  The captions put in by the editor of the video have been altered to read 'the leader'.  Interestingly, youtube's own caption algorithm seems to disagree with this - turn captions on through the options and you can read what is plainly audible - 'a leader'.  If you're not paying close attention I can see how that would fool someone listening . . . but under close scrutiny the argument for 'the' seems to fall apart pretty quickly.

I have to voice agreement for @Telecaster on this one.

[neo von retorch]

We're basing investment decisions on whether some person being interviewed said "a" or "the."

...


...

OK.

(really we're just here for the entertainment - I own exactly as much Tesla stock as it has percentage-wise in my VTI holdings... )

[Telecaster]

We're basing investment decisions on whether some person being interviewed said "a" or "the."

Indeed.  Time to move on.  In investment news, Tesla is furloughing Cybertruck and Model Y workers for a a week.   

It has been explained to me that Tesla's dwindling car business is a feature not a bug.  So this is actually good news because it demonstrates Tesla is not distracted from its robotics and insurance operations by building cars.

https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-model-y-cybertruck-workers-stay-home-memorial-day-2025-5

[dragoncar]

Eh I heard “the leader” after several listens so I guess reasonable minds can differ here.  This is some serious yanny blue dress stuff as I’m actually surprise people are hearing “a leader”

Fwiw my audio processing is very poor. Im the guy in the club who will ask you to repeat yourself three times and then just give up and nod enthusiastically