-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
Peter Rawlinson this morning on CNBC: Starting production with $169K Lucid Dream [targeting a whopping 500 models this year]. $77,400 Lucid Air not available until late next year [who wants to place bets that they will be lucky to get it out before 2023].
How many thousands of new MS LR will be delivered by then (not to mention Plaids)?
When will Wall Street finally realize that Tesla has no competition?
How many thousands of new MS LR will be delivered by then (not to mention Plaids)?
When will Wall Street finally realize that Tesla has no competition?
Paracelsus
Active Member
This is a very good post. And I agree with everything about it except the timeline. Respectfully, I believe it will happen much sooner, and it will be much more profitable than today’s backwards-looking comparisons can forecast for us. Personally I would cut your timeline in half - from 2030 to 2025. Why? Because both ends of the Supply Chain have already put the world on notice and we are already ramping up the S curve.
How do we know that the Installation Side of the supply chain is demanding more product from TE? Demand is far greater than the whispers of ‘supply-limited’ stories we see drowned out by mainstream FUD. TE has orders for every single product it can make for years to come. For example, we are working with one of the largest solar and storage companies in the nation so that we can hopefully have access to Tesla products in an area where electricity is less expensive than Tesla’s target install areas. And this company actually has a standing order with Tesla Energy with very simple language. It’s standing order states that it will buy every single Powerwall that Tesla can produce. The order is that simple. Every single one. And this company is simply one of many banging at the door for every TE storage product from Powerwalls to Megapacks. This emphasizes just how horrible the Old Paradigm competing with Tesla must feel about their inability to change with the times. The line for TE products is as far as the eye can see.
And how do we know the Manufacturing Side of the Supply Chain has been put on notice that ‘He who grows fastest wins’? Simple. Elon has already done that with a choice of words at Battery Day that IMO were meant to strike fear in the hearts of any doubters or anyone hoping Tesla will fail, while putting the biggest carrot on a stick possible for manufacturers in a live event broadcast globally when he said Tesla will buy every battery that manufacturers can deliver. Every single battery. There was no mixing of words there. If you build it we will buy it. In essence this was a standing order to the world for batteries for TE and TM products. And the audience was global.
Thus my reasoning for accelerating your timeline from 2030 to 2025 is that Tesla isn’t going this route alone now. Manufacturers from around the world are scrambling to be able to supply TE with batteries so that Installers around the world have access to the TE storage solutions - many of which are already ordered. TE is the only point through which every dollar shall pass. TE has already accomplished what people said it couldn’t, and it already owns both ends of the global supply chain as a result IMO.
The ramp will happen much sooner than we think, and TE will be valued higher than TM much sooner than we think. And most analysts still think Tesla is just a car company.....
I don't particularly see the need to go back to the decisions from years ago - i trust that Tesla was making the best choices at the time (and I was around for a lot of those discussions anyway, as you said upthread, so again, no need to rehash). I also think your point above about using the Nevada GF as a testing ground that helped them refine what they are building at Shanghai/Berlin/Austin is a great point.
The part that I think may be worth discussion is the current state - why is GF-1 no longer an optimal choice? Clearly Tesla is thinking about those things as well, learning from the challenges of building a massive factory where there wasn't a ready-made supply of engineering talent (and where the incentives to relocate weren't great). You can see that in their more recent choices. I don't really think any of this is unknown, but at least it gives some value to the conversation. From an investor perspective - is Tesla learning from past mistakes? (always!).
I don't think Nevada was a screw-up, but for those that did, it's probably due to the memory that California was in the running for a GF-1 site. Such a site wouldn't have the same labor pool issues.
But people forget that CA is notorious for environmental protection over-reach. GF-1 would simply not have been built in as quickly, nor as cheaply as Nevada was able to do. Throw in covid, and how the state shut Fremont down for over a month, and many of the "could-a, should-a, would-a scenarios" would end up cancelling out.
People should just stop second-guessing the past. Recognize the problems that arose and then try to fix them and move on. Nevada having a shortage of labor? Import cells, automate, etc. Stop talking about how Nevada wasn't the best choice afterall.
While they have been amplifying every Tesla miscue over the past few years, simultaneously they have assumed that their competitors will execute flawlessly. Turns out that was a really bad assumption.
ZachF
Active Member
An important factor to remember as Tesla tries to minimize service costs: This will help them immensely long term as they become a vehicle operator via the robotaxi fleet.
lafrisbee
Active Member
I don't think elon's "People" have made an A-grade move in regards to real estate/gigafactory sites yet.
I understood the Fremont site looked awesome, but come on there was/IS a reason the other automotive company was intelligent enough to leave.
Every site gets a "Fail" in at least one category.
I understood the Fremont site looked awesome, but come on there was/IS a reason the other automotive company was intelligent enough to leave.
Every site gets a "Fail" in at least one category.
You heard it here first, from oilprice.com (reprinted by zerohedge).
oilprice.com
The World Will Run Out Of EV Batteries By 2025 | OilPrice.com
The world is going all-in on the electric vehicle revolution, but there are a number of challenges that could stop the EV boom dead in its tracks
oilprice.com
I disagree because your Fremont argument is specious and because all their choices were exactingly made at the time according to then current reasoning and resources, an uncertain amount of which can never be known publicly.
“Nobody goes there anymore because it’s always too crowded”You heard it here first, from oilprice.com (reprinted by zerohedge).
The World Will Run Out Of EV Batteries By 2025 | OilPrice.com
The world is going all-in on the electric vehicle revolution, but there are a number of challenges that could stop the EV boom dead in its tracks
Andy O
Member
No. There is a weak connection between the two things because they use conceptually different types of batteries. Battery weight, energy density, and power density are important for vehicles but not for stationary storage. Stationary storage batteries can be built without taking physical resources away from car batteries.
ChefBoyardee
Member
I was thinking it's a play on "Biggest Bang for your Buck" - good profit margins, high operating leverage, something like that.
petit_bateau
Active Member
Yes, I fully agree that everybody in the energy space is screaming for batteries. I too am in the energy space and I can't get them for love nor money. Nobody can.
Yet to achieve what you suggest, in order for Tesla to shift the rate-inflexion moment forwards then Tesla will need to grow cell supply faster than vehicle supply. To get to my 2030 forecasts of 65% cell usage in vehicles and 35% in energy I have to assume 50% yoy cell supply growth, but with vehicle growth declining towards 43% yoy in such a way as to hit the 20mln vehicles/year in 2030 objective.
I can postulate Tesla (and their supply chain) being able to grow vehicle assembly capacity at 50% yoy for a decade, and I can envisage the matching 50% for cell supply. But however hard I drool I find it seriously difficult to think that cell supply growth will much outstrip vehicle growth, so that the inflexion point for stationary storage growth could occur earlier than the very late 2020s. I can imagine temporarily localised cell oversupply that would of course be mopped up immediately in stationary, but I find it hard to envisage sustained oversupply. If it were sustained then the vehicle assembly growth would simply be increased to absorb it.
Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see that sort of success. But I cannot envisage that during the first 7-8 years of the 2020-2030 period that cell supply will grow at (say) 80% per year, but vehicles will only grow at (say) 50% per year.
This morning’s NY Times earnings day hit piece, on the front page of the business section natch though below the fold, had this doozy:
"The delay is nothing new for Tesla, which has a long history of overly optimistic timelines for autonomous driving, electric long-haul trucks and rocket launches." NY Times Tesla’s Factory Near Berlin Runs Into Activists, Red Tape and Lizards (Seems to have been published on-line 3 days ago, wonder why they waited till today to put it in the print version.
)
I guess fact checkers are going the way of copy editors who went earlier at the Times. Washington Post
Maybe it was really just that insistence on the series comma that took out the copy desk.
"The delay is nothing new for Tesla, which has a long history of overly optimistic timelines for autonomous driving, electric long-haul trucks and rocket launches." NY Times Tesla’s Factory Near Berlin Runs Into Activists, Red Tape and Lizards (Seems to have been published on-line 3 days ago, wonder why they waited till today to put it in the print version.
)I guess fact checkers are going the way of copy editors who went earlier at the Times. Washington Post
Maybe it was really just that insistence on the series comma that took out the copy desk.
Drumheller
Active Member
Well, technically, the new roadster is delayed and it will have an options package that includes rockets. So, Tesla's first rocket launch is upcoming.The NY Times earnings day hit piece, on the front page of the business section natch though below the fold, had this doozy this morning:
"The delay is nothing new for Tesla, which has a long history of overly optimistic timelines for autonomous driving, electric long-haul trucks and rocket launches."
Tesla’s Factory Near Berlin Runs Into Activists, Red Tape and Lizards (Seems to have been published on-line 3 days ago, wonder why they waited till today to put it in the print version.
I guess fact checkers went the way of copy editors at the Times.
Maybe it was really just that insistence on the series comma that took out the copy desk.
Usually 10 - 60 minutes after market close.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
